Ive just realised the horrible truth here.

Gillard and Bligh cannot possibly show a surplus now at the election or any time in between because to do so would demonstrate they could have avoided this unpopular tax. So they'll have a massive incentive to spend it all (no matter on what)

You really *can* imagine the meeting to discuss making sure *any* surplus is spent to make sure they demonstrate that they really needed this.

Well, you can if you ever watched Yes Minister.

But thats my point!! The levy that is being talked about is not for the flooded people. Its for the infrastructure. You know - roads, bridges etc. None of this levy will be used to rebuild peoples houses.

The flood affected people will not recieve a penny of direct aid from this levy. (maybe indirect if they happen to be involved in the construction trade and are involved in the rebiluding effort).

Yes you're right, it was their decision to live on a flood plain (and thats why the majority had insurance, some didnt I agree and some had the wrong insurance, but the majority did), but does that mean nobody should ever live anywhere that there is a 1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year risk that a natural disaster might occur? Lovely thought but a bit naive in my opinion.

And when that 1 in a 100 year event does occur, does that mean the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say "your choice mate - tough"

I dont think the people in the flood affected areas expect the rest of us to 'bail them out' as you put it, but I do believe they will gratefully recieve any assistance that we feel able to donate (whether thats time or money or both).

I do however think and expect that the govt, both state and federal, will repair the damaged infrastructure and therefore logically I expect my tax to go up slightly after a natural disater of this magnitude.

Anyone that didnt expect that had their head in the sand in my opinion.

The media loves this one in x years stuff. Is it really 1 in 100 years? How long have people been tracking floods in Australia?

What was the Brisbane flood peak? A bit under 4.5m?

Seems like worse than that happened 3 times in 10 years before.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/ql..._history.shtml

One thing that's telling is that the flood peak was 1m lower than 1974, but it seems like nearly 4 times as many homes were flooded this time.

Thats an interesting one and I would be questioning it with the bus company! Certainly the Brisbane Buses I used didn't have that operating....maybe I'm a cynical git this week, but it sounds fishy to me.

I agree.....its stupid. So what about everyone who lives in FNQ with cyclones happening fairly often? What about people in Victoria (and other states) who live in bushfire prone areas/ drought areas? Should we allow the insurance companies repeatedly wriggle out of paying for people who do the right thing and take out insurance, to be told they are not covered? And where are these people supposed to live Just In Case theres another flood in 30 years time..? the rise in population (all over the world) is making it nigh on impossible to live somewhere that doesnt get freakish weather/ disasters.....of some kind or other. Perhaps we should go and live in space. In a box....

Official flood peak at the City gauge was 4.46 metres.

I'm surprised that nobody has moaned about the increase in food prices due to the flooding that have been touted in the papers.

Can't Coles and Woolies just import the stuff when there is a shortage? Surely if the price of something increases after the flooding then that means there is a shortage?

For those on average incomes the new tax is only a couple of dollars extra a week, meanwhile in the papers - sensationalism I know - increases up to 50% are being forecast! Surely everybody would be more worried about the cost of living?

Did you actually listen to Gillard's speech yesterday? Not once did she mention the levy was going to be spent on infrastructure.

Nor should they.

That's not what I am saying. People can feel free to live wherever they want but must accept the consequences in the event it all goes pear shaped and not expect people to bail them out.

Shit happens, that's life.

If it is a known flood zone or bushfire area then yes because on the balance of probability, if it has happened once it can happen again and don't forget, it wasn't 100 years ago that was the last time there were floods. The last major ones were in 1974 which is not too long ago. This 100 years stuff is political spin.

I don't think they do either. It's the politicians that want us to keep donating and force us to pay a new tax.

They wouldn't need to introduce a new tax if they managed our money more wisely. Instead they just throw it at failed project after failed project. But that's what I expect from socialist governments. All they know how to do is spend other people's money.

What happens if this "1 in a 100 year" flood happens again in another two years, and then again three years later and then again the year after that?

We keep hearing about the effects of climate change... what if this really is climate change at work?
I know that these areas are historically prone to flooding, but what happens if this is the start of regular serious floods?
Do we keep pouring money into the area ad infinitum?

Ermmm, add southern WA to the list with their catergory one cyclone about to decend on them...hope everyone is safe, and that we are safe from another levvy

Wait until the next el nino cycle, then it will be drought again. It's all cyclical, even climate change.

Just in case you don't realise I don't think the rain that caused the 1974 flood would flood Brisbane these days. It has been 100 years since the last flood this size.

But thats just naive to think that. They're Govt. ie by definition they dont use money as wisely as they could/should. Its got nothing to do with them being socialists. The Liberal / Conservative / Republican govts worldwide are pretty good at wasting money as well. Its the nature of Govt and you're whistling dixie if you think thats going to change anytime soon. Learn to live with it and plan for it. Or get involved in Govt yourself and work to change it (good luck!!!!)

Otherwise you're just going to give yourself high blood pressure working yourself up about it.


As for the rest of your post, I'll just say I hope I never need any help or compassion when you're walking on by!

Point taken about the shortness of records but re those other 3 floods in the 10 years before 1893 - they all happened without the Wivenhoe dam -they might be mostly mitigated these days.

I blame Kevin Rudd! That t**t gave everyone a grand, wiped out the biggest budget surplus ever encountered by an incoming govt in one big vote buying swoop