Friday 21 January 2011

The Viewpoint - A royal waste of money?

: Where is money better spent? On a Royal Commission or in the recovery efforts? Photo during Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria.

by Ina van Bezoen

When I read that there was going to be a Royal Commission into the Queensland Flood Crisis and that it was going to take about a year to complete and cost around $15 million, I had to look up what a Royal Commission actually does.

I wanted to know who will 'oversee' the independent inquiry, and what the results have been from previous Royal Commissions (RC). I was under the impression that Natural Disasters were exempt from RC's.

The Victorian bushfires RC had questions that needed answering such as the use of back burning, the responses to emergencies, the operation and actions of the Victorian Fire Brigade, people deliberately lighting fires and so on.

But I don't see why a freak flood, a lot of rain, and high tides warrants a $15 million inquiry.

Yes, it is partly about the money. While riding high on emotion it's clear that a transparent review is needed for the people who died, for all who lost their possessions and for future generations.

We see the great efforts of volunteers extending a helping hand to clean up the mess, helping people going back to their home, to work, and starting all over again.

My point is unless the treasure chest is full of useless money, wouldn't the $15 million come in handy there?

Or perhaps an inquiry overseen by volunteer senior qualified and retired professionals to give their bit in assisting Queensland's recovery, infrastructure and services?

I was impressed by Anna Bligh's updates, covering the progress of the floods, explaining the capabilities of the dam, warning, the reasons behind the actions they took (releasing water from the dam, power supplies cut off etc) and her empathy for her State's people.

Decisions are based on what is in front of you and the predictions experts make.

Issues such as insurance company policies, building permits and adherence..... isn't it just highlighting that we as human beings are fickle? No inquiry can change that.

There will always be people and companies wanting to take advantage of situations such as the flood crisis. There will always be people that want to build somewhere risky (and with the right contacts they can) while the rest blindly follow. A restaurant that wants a view? Why not?

But if a RC is needed to look into that, why not wait a few weeks. I don't think there was a RC for the 1974 floods.

An example of a recommendation resulting from the RC into Victoria's bushfires is 'Recommendation 26'. It states:

"The Country Fire Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment adopt the title 'safety officer' (as opposed to 'safety adviser') and require without exception that a safety officer be appointed to every level 3 incident management team)."

That is a very worthy recommendation, officer sounds so much better.

If anyone can explain to me what the benefit is of spending $15 million for the future is instead of spending it on the people needing financial support now, on the roads that need repairing now, on services that need to be operational now, please let me know.

If the results of the inquiry can't be determined in any other way but to spend the cash, I am happy to change my Viewpoint.

If you've got a Viewpoint on an issue that's important to you, or even just for laughs, send it to info@thenewsport.com.au.

Have your say!

We love receiving your comments and publishing them for all to see. To ensure the forum remains constructive please respect other peoples comments. Any comment submitted will only be published if name and valid email address are supplied for publication. The Editor reserves the right to edit comments. Click here for full publishers terms and conditions for reader comments.

ina , 28-01-11 17:58:

I realize $15 mil is seen as small change for some - a worry in itself, but that might be another viewpoint. In regards to Will's response, does it need a RC or is lessons learned and implement these lessons enough. I hope that the job description of Dam management includes that they review performance, decisions etc and implement changes. I doubt if there is no other way to getting results and publish the findings in a way does does not cost my earth. I am aware of the powers of a RC, RC's are becoming mainstream this way and looses its strength, and results will be the same if it was an inquiry by the experts and authorities at a fraction of the costs.

Will Devlin, 27-01-11 17:52:

Danny, you're right. $15m IS small change; Ina, YOU are right - the money could be better spent. BUT, in my view, the questions that need to be asked - and answered - revolve around management of the Wivenhoe Dam. As well all know, dams perform two major functions:
(i) storage of water to alleviate the shortages caused by drought; and
(ii) flood management, so that the dam holds back water which otherwise would cause major flooding.
So, there is a fine balancing act between holding back water during drought and releasing some before major rain events such as that which befell South East Qld in the 72 devastating hours two weeks ago. Had the dam operators released water in he lead up to predicted rains which hadn't eventuated, the same nmber of people would be decrying their actions as those that decry their inaction/action in the release of water preceding and during the rain storm. Incidentally, hydrology experts have estimated that some 6.5 - 7.5 BILLION TONS OF WATER fell - as rain - on SEQ in that 72 hours! (Contrast a bath tub full of water at about 350kg!) At any event, a Royal Commission - and at $15 million it's a bargain - has the authority to demand answers to questions behind which people are not entitled to hide on their general right to silence. Any Royal Commission worth its salt will represent money well spent. That's my view.

Danny Hanly, 22-01-11 11:41:

$15million small change compared to what the Qld Govt has wasted under Beattie & Bligh.$20 million on a forum for Council Amalgamation over 9months then ditched,$80 mill on a new Health System,which failed miserably & cost to fix $209 million.A Fed Govt than can waste a BILLION $'s on a scheme that also failed & then an inquiry in to why.Both these levels of Govt now calling on the people to give more in Donations & time.No Direct Accountability & pass the buck whereever possible,easy way out Royal Commission(normally made up of even more inept pollies).You wont see any of these pollies lining up after election time handing out parts of there pensions or super to there constituents who in reality will never be able to recover regardless of Govt handouts.

Ann , 21-01-11 11:15:

Point well made Ina, my personal fear is that the Royal Commission is simply a witchhunt to find a scapegoat. The days have long gone where we simply accept that s**t sometimes just happens and these tragic natural disasters certainly come under that category. But because we live in this horribly litigious world there is no such thing as an accident anymore, they are always incidents. And incidents always have someone to blame and therefore someone to sue. I expect the State Government is delighted to have an RC. It can then stay out of it just in case anything unforeseen is uncovered or maybe I'm just being cynical. Anyway I'm with you Ina, let's stop spending on the RC and use it better to alleviate the suffering of our fellow Australians.