Monday, January 24, 2011

Means testing for flood aid from the Queensland Premier's Appeal Fund

The Queensland Premier's Flood Appeal fund recipients will be means tested to determine whether they are worthy of receiving funds from this pool which has largely been donated by generous people and businesses Australia wide and, indeed, from around the world. Of course the Premier of Queensland says means testing is fair.

For example, a $5000 grant to help uninsured home owners to restore essential utilities will not be available to couples with a combined annual income of more than $48,400 or for singles who earn more than $36,600.

Ms Bligh said the payments were modelled on state-federal arrangements and were to ensure the "neediest get the most".
The line must be drawn somewhere, but why reward the uninsured and not help those who are insured? The donations were to help all people affected by the floods. I don't think that those who are uninsured are more deserving than those who are insured.

Read more on the means testing here.

Like my mother I believe that everyone should get the same amount of funds, I think that it is fair that the damage to property be determined and the amount of funding be determined by the level of inundation/damage/material loss suffered by each flood victim/family/home. For example, if the whole house has gone under the amount should be X, if the water only covered the floor the amount should by less than X. I'm not sure how to determine how much each case should get, but there should be guidelines which are applied to everyone equally.

Just because a family may earn more than another doesn't mean that they are in a better position to afford to replace/repair/rebuild. I also think that people who are insured should not be punished by not receiving funds from the pool, and those intentionally uninsured should not be rewarded for their lack of preparation.


Merilyn said...

The money that is coming in is from donations right, it is not State money as such, [have I got that right?]
So those in dire need should be helped to rebuild, to refurbish, etc.
As for insurance sadly many put that last on their list, not because they don't want to pay, they simply don't have the money after paying all the bills, [thanks to the huge increases of electricity etc], but I understand your point.
So let's hope Anna and her crew don't put the money into general revenue never to be seen again.

Anonymous said...

When the Red Cross redirected funds to other uses than it was meant to, by us donors, (tsunami) I stopped donating to them.

I only ever give to the Salvoes since then.

Not that they are without fault, but at least most of them looking for their reward in the hereafter.

stackja1945 said...

Move most of the people above water level first. Then build or all this will happen again. I would not trust the ALP and most charities are too leftist.

prairiecat55kc said...

I do the same as Anonymous. Bureaucracies EAT money and use it for whatever THEY wish, often disregarding the needs of those it's meant to help.