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.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.
Ms Bligh said the payments were modelled on state-federal arrangements and were to ensure the "neediest get the most".
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.