Queensland Flood Disaster

[SRW]

SRW I also read 5.2.5 about recovering from other sources. I also took 'other sources' to include insurers. The language is similar to a clause disallowing multiple insurers for any event - if you have recovered from source A you cannot recover from source B for the same damage.

I think you're misguided about the insurance position. Correct me if you can, but I think the situation is as I described above - only Qld does not insure its public assets.

That was never my point.

[rev]

rev said:

Wow, from moaning about the SA state labor gov, to moaning about the federal and Qld labor governments.

Tragic as the floods and cyclone have been, what if the Qld, SA and federal Labor governments deserve moaning about?

After all, it's not just me and the federal opposition who are complaining - pre-disaster, Bligh's approval was in the 20s and Labor lost around 7 seats in Qld at the last election; Labor would lose a federal election right now, and the Rann government is in the grip of a union minority and is about to appoint a deputy premier and a treasurer based on anything but merit and suitable experience. So yes, I am moaning about all three governments.

Please feel free to defend the magnificent record of any or all of the governments I'm moaning about.

People like you make me sick.
You obviously have an agenda you aren't sharing with the rest of us. That much is evident from your bitching and crying about the SA gov and the SDA union, Don Farrel, Foley, Rann, and everyone else in the Labor party.
You refuse to reveal "who" your sources are, or where you get your information from, only giving vague answers at best, trying to deflect attention.
Now at a time when the country should be coming together after one of the worst natural disasters in our history, people like you with an agenda come out and start slinging mud around. I bet you never thought of the victims for more then a moment or two, instead salivating at the thought of being able to have a dig at Labor again. Certainly the evidence agrees with such an assessment.
As Sam Kekovich would say, your un-Australian.

Carry on with your conspiracy theories about Don Farrel, Julia Gillard and whomever else you want to sling shit at. I half expect you tell us she is a CIA agent in deep cover to prevent China from acquiring major stakes in our natural resources.

[Isiskii]

I think Julia's a lez.

[rhino]

Oh Boy, that was constructive.

[mshagg]

SRW wrote:
The problem I have with that article is that the 75/25 recovery arrangement applies equally to all the states

As I understand it, only Qld has the 75/25 arrangement with the federal government (presumably limited to state-owned infrastructure). Other states either carry their own risk or reinsure on the world market.

No, all states are equally treated under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. I think the iffy bit is that the Commonwealth is liable to reimburse the states only for actual and exceptional expenditure, and not for costs recovered or likely to be recovered from another source (5.2.5a) -- perhaps including insurance agencies.

From what i can gather, having had a sniff around after it was revealed QLD stands somewhat alone in 'self insuring' natural disaster risks, i believe all states are eligible for the commonwealth to pick up 75% of the net costs in such events. Seeing as the captive insurers operated by SA/WA/NSW/Vic reinsure above a retention point (the retention point being a function of the state's risk tolerance), this has a significant impact on the net liability - the point which the commonwealth contributes to the tune of 75%.

No doubt there's a bunch of stuff that isnt covered by these reinsurance arrangements - essentially anything outside of property (such as business interrruption costs, emergency services costs, equipment hire etc etc) which SA/WA/NSW/Vic would seek to recover 75% from the Commonwealth, but they would pale in comparison to the property losses. Tas, NT and the ACT dont seem to reinsure these risks either, but the liability in those states is arguably much smaller than a foodbowl state like QLD.

[rhino]

And at last, the Voice of Reason has it's say.

Nick Xenophon does flood levy deal with Julia Gillard
Political Editor Mark Kenny in Canberra From: AdelaideNow March 03, 2011 12:33PM

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has secured the final vote to pass her controversial flood levy after giving substantial ground to independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

The deal gives her the last vote needed to secure passage of the legislation through the Senate.

Disaster relief rules will now be redrawn to force state governments to take reasonable steps to obtain insurance cover for public assets such as road, bridges and schools.

While the levy will now go ahead, Senator Xenophon said the changes to disaster payments were a big win for taxpayers in the longer run.

"Of course we must find the funds to rebuild Queensland this time," he said.

"But this overhaul will also mean we won't have to find as much money if disaster strikes anywhere in Australia ever again."

The independent senator had been highly critical of Queensland's reliance on Commonwealth assistance, prompting the state's Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, to accuse him of "pimping" for the insurance industry.

But Senator Xenophon said the changes he had secured were about "sending a clear message to all state and territory governments that the days of gambling with other peoples' money are over".

"I want to be clear that my beef was never with the people of Queensland. It was only ever with the Queensland Government which failed to protect both Queensland and federal taxpayers".

The agreement clears the way for the $1.8 billion 12 month levy to pass into law and commence operation from July 1.

However the delay and independents' demands for a short Senate inquiry to examine the legislation, means it will not clear the upper house until the next sitting week beginning March 21.

The deal is also a victory for Ms Gillard who is keen to build her political authority having declared 2011 her "year of delivery".

And it is a loss for the Opposition, which campaigned hard against the special levy arguing voters would not support another tax despite opinion polls in the wake of Queensland's summer of disasters showing a slim majority of Australians supported it.

Senator Xenophon said that under amended National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements it would now be "almost impossible" for state governments to opt out of taking out proper disaster cover because their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance would be scaled back.

The changes means states would only be eligible for the full 75 per cent Commonwealth disaster relief funding, after meeting certain requirements.

Among these are that they would have to agree to independent assessments of their insurance arrangements, the first of which must be completed by September 30, this year.

States must also satisfy the federal Government that they have adequate capital reserves "or access to capital to fund liabilities or infrastructure losses before being granted access" to Commonwealth funds.

Senator Xenophon predicted the new arrangements would protect taxpayers by forcing states such as Queensland and Tasmania, as well as the two territories, to prove they had taken all possible steps to minimise financial risk and obtain adequate insurance.

The breakthrough came after tense negotiations which had dragged on over four weeks and only concluded late last night in the capital.