Higgledy-Piggledy Flood Relief Needs Centralisation
Higgledy-Piggledy Flood Relief Needs Centralisation
Between the Premier’s Flood Appeal, The Salvation Army Flood Appeal, Channel Nine’s Flood Relief Appeal and countless other corporate and not-for-profit initiatives, I am confused as to where to send my money. Where does it all end up? Which organisations need how much money?
There seems little doubt that, given the higgledy-piggledy nature of the process so far, some are going to end up with too much money and some not enough. No doubt making a direct contribution makes us feel good. Many of us, like me, unaffected by the crisis, want to feel like we’re doing something to help and it’s inspiring to see what we’re capable of when the situation calls for it. But we’re not Haiti. We’re not Aceh. And we’re not Pakistan.
Our country is rich. Our government has one of the strongest balance sheets in the developed world and enough capacity to fund the reconstruction and emergency relief many times over. Why do we need to raise money through dozens of disparate organisations?
Privately-funded charitable organisations have their place. People can use their own private funds to further a cause they care strongly about, without forcing everyone else to do the same. But a disaster on this scale is something that needs an equivalent response and a commensurate amount of funding.
Why doesn’t the government simply centralise the whole process and allocate money out to those organisations that need it, thereby contributing on all of our behalves? If needs be, put the GST up by 1% for a couple of years to pay for it. Who would complain about that?
PS. The photo is the view of my parents' farm from the balcony. The river, usually behind that thick line of trees you can see in the distance, had been dry for the past decade.
Custom Search 2
Comments
I am glad someone has the guts to bring this issue up. In Australia the unfortunate is normally very well looked after. There is a lot of social services out there either government or non-government who can help.Donating money gives us a good feeling however we need to make sure that it is spent properly.Also it may be taking money that could be better used elsewhere.
I personally prefer to give to countries where there is just no fallback for the poor,Pakiston like you mentioned is just one.
Donations to public hospital like Princess Margaret hospital that the Telethon done yearly and SIDs (Sudden infant Death syndrome,does anyone still do research on this anymore??)just doesn't add up.
I now go put my flak jacket on!!!
Steve, you have managed to put into words what I have been thinking. One issue I have with making donations is that for every dollar I give, that probably means one dollar less that the government thinks it needs to spend on aid and thus more it has to waste on other less deserving causes. Lets have the govenment just fully fund all that needs to be and be done with it.
I like the idea of the a central authority for co-ordination of disaster donations. I also think that the Commonwealth Government should control and disperse the funds. But,unfortunately, like so many other things in our society, it would raise the ugly partisan cries of "big new Tax" and " Nanny State". We have heard it already.
Centralisation is exactly what we don't need. This sort of situation is best left to the real experts, people used to getting their hands dirty, e.g Australian Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army. That way you have a chance of getting emergency out to the people that need it. Centralisation will only add a layer of bureaucracy and money allocation to the wrong areas at the wrong time. Leave it the way it is for now and donate through the experts like the Australian Red Cross. Of course there will be a role for Government once the reconstruction phrase starts, but for now decentralisation is it. Oh and I would ignore channel 9 they have a history of grandstanding and taking credit in these types of disasters. (By the way, I have no association with the red cross, St Vinnies, Salvation Army or Channel 9).
Disparate organisations can focus on disparate needs. I don't see why centralising disaster relief efforts would improve efficiency any more than centralising an economy would do so.
Thank you Peter C. You have identified the key point nicely. Local organisations - small and nimble - are best placed to meet important short term needs. Supporting them means fast targeted assistance. While both state and federal governments have been quick to act to provide some immediate assistance, they are often hamstrung by accountability requirements that are appropriate in normal times but need to be more flexible in situations like the Victorian bush fires or Qld floods. Of course there is a risk that some 4s will "go astray" but that is balanced by the need for urgent support. It is a bit like speculative investing - providing it is a small part of your portfolio it is OK and can be very effective despite the risk.
Local groups are more able to manage the risk and target the benefits.
I would complain about the GST going up for a couple of years!The most appropriate way to fund the federal governments response is to revisit the resources tax.
I will probably get heckled & jeered for this comment, but I am sick and tired of having to help people out who refuse to insure their homes properly. I have my home and contents insured properly and would expect to pay any handouts given to me by charity or government back once I was back on my feet.
The government, either local, state or federal, should be able to fund the rebuilding of all infrastructure & essential services and that is it.
I know some insurance companies won't cover for flood damage at moment, but maybe the government should legislate to make this compulsory for them to do this.
I truly feel sorry for these people who have lost their homes etc, but can't see why we should have to pay for people who are to lazy, or want to "take the risk" of not correctly insuring themselves.
Jeremy, I agree with you up to a point but would also point out that there are many who just can't afford insurance at all, let alone flood insurance. My niece is a student at UQ and living in a student house in St Lucia which went under. She is existing on the youth allowance and has barely enough money to get by. I do not call this lazy. However, my family are funding her personal "relief fund" so I do not expect other people to pay to get her back on her feet.
Having had to go to Centrelink with her,I also think that getting the Government to centralise relief would take far more money away from where it's needed than any aid organisation would. Go with the trusted ones and do it now.
I generally agree with Peter C re centralisation, but on a side track, am I wrong in thinking that this palaver about a levy is completely misplaced? If the federal government is going to assist Queenslanders (and Victorians) in rebuilding, then it is going to cost us as taxpayers one way or another. A levy is increased taxation for the additional expenditure. If we don't have a levy and spend anyway, then that expenditure (plus interest from the debt funding it in the interim) will have to be repaid from future taxation. What's the difference other than timing?
The issue of having adequate insurance is one which I believe needs further scrutiny. You just about need to be a lawyer to read your policy these days and fully understand just what is covered and what is not. I read a letter to the editor recently from a person who was around after the 1974 floods and he made the point that, following that event, our then Premier Sir Joh had suggested that the Government should legislate that all insurers must offer an "All Risks" policy. The policy holder would then have the opportunity to opt out of the risks that they were prepared to carry themselves.It would be difficult for property owners to then claim that they thought they had insurance which they had made a coscious decision to delete from the policy. Seems like a reasonable suggestion but I wonder what it would do to our premiums and how some of the insurers would survive.
Because you've got options, you're "confused about where to send [your] money." You're right! When I go to the supermarket and see all those breakfast cereals, I get confused. And when I drive down the road and see all those different brands of petrol, I get confused. And all those banks! They get me even more confused. So what we need to do is have the government step in and eliminate all this higgledy-piggledy unnecessary duplication and overlap, centralise, and become the sole provider of these goods and services. And then I wouldn't be confused any more.
Life was so much less confusing in the good old Telecom days.
Well if there were a bunch of different cereal boxes on the shelf with no labels, no indication as to their contents and no nutritional information, then yes, I would be confused.
That's exactly how I feel here. There are dozens of calls for my money and very little in the way of information about what exactly they are going to do with it, no estimate of how much they need or what they intend to do with the extra if they end up with too much.
I did read an article suggesting a permanent independent government body responsible for disaster management and relief, with specific expertise and the ability to move and obtains funding quickly. Seems like a sensible idea to me.
A great avoidable disaster. And isn't everyone surprised and sad.
What's' more, prudent taxpayers end up paying to re-house many of the uninsured negligent battlers who saved on premiums and displayed great ignorance by choosing low-lying land.
Interesting comments about insurance!
Insurance is generally regarded as intending to meet fortuitous (happening or produced by chance; accidental: a fortuitous encounter) losses. So if the likelihood of a flood of recent proportions is every 37 years and then you add in all the other floods that don't make the news it's questionnable whether it's fortuitous and most likely reasonably expected to occur.
In either event Insurers of course will need to charge a premium commensurate with the risk. As a crude example imagine you own a house that will cost you $250,000 to rebuild and you're going to have to rebuild it every 37 years. Insurers are going to need a premium, just for flood protection of $250,000 / 37 = $6,756 and they need a premium to account for potential break-ins, fire, impact by vehicles and the other hundred things they cover. It's unlikely a policyholder would be prepared, or able to pay that kind of premium, even a quarter of that. So why should an insurer carry the risk? the answer is they shouldn't unless they're rewarded for doing so.
On the subject of ease in reading a policy, the challenge is to ensure a fair contract exists that reflects the coverage provided. Usually if there is any ambiguity on what is covered, the policyholder is favoured. Flood is generally excluded from property policies unless specifically requested.
A contract of insurance afterall is a CONTRACT. Most people would seek out a lawyer to review contracts and other legal documents but when it comes to insurance many just look at the price with little attention to what they are covered for. An insurance broker (yes, I am one and no I do not comment on my company's behalf) can at least provide professional advice on insurance. Of those who do buy insurance, the incidence of under-insurance, i.e. not declaring adequate values of buildings, etc is horrendous. The purchaser needs to provide time for consideration and take the issue of risk seriously.
This is clearly a community problame where many parties have a role to play. As far as donated funds are concerned I'd rather donate to one organisation that I can trust to translate as much of my dollar to support for the genuinely needy.
Thanks,
Wyn, totally disagree with your comment that most people would or should see a Lawyer about a contract. If people have to see a lawyer, then the contract is a bad and unfair contract. It should be mandatory that all contracts are written in Plain English rather than legalese. Basically if an average 16 year old male (they are less developed than females at this age) cannot understand the contract, then the contract should be written again. You should not have to see a lawyer about a contract, they should all be in Plain English with no "fine print," and anything known to the company which might affect the contract should be disclosed. If not then the contract should be considered an unfair contract. I'll give you an example. My contract covers animal damage, but does not cover,"vermin, rodents, insects, birds,domestic cats or dogs, or any other animal kept at the site." The Oxford dictionary defines vermin as "mammals and birds which are harmful to crops, farm animals or game, or which carry disease." So that eliminates every mammal and bird because they all carry disease. So what do they cover? Snakes, lizards or fish falling from the sky? That coverage is basically useless. Agree there is a problem about under-insurance but this is mainly caused by 2 reasons 1) People guessing the cost of replacing buildings/goods because they have no idea how to calculate it; 2) Reconstruction costs outstripping "official" inflation rates i.e when a property was first insured it may have been ok, but the CPI increase built in over the years is not enough to cover the actual increase in construction costs, therefore people end up being under-insured. Truth is, insurance companies can do a lot more to help their clients understand these issues and help them understand the importance of being fully covered.
Post new comment