This from the ALGA News, an online news service from the Australian Local Government Association, of 22 March 2013.
New disaster recovery allowance bill introduced
For the first time there will be a permanent solution to providing disaster assistance to workers, small business people and farmers experience a loss of income as a direct result of a disaster.
Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management Mark Dreyfus QC introduced the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Assistance) Bill, which creates the Disaster Recovery Allowance.
The allowance will provide fortnightly payments equivalent to the maximum rate of Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance for up to 13 weeks following a disaster.
“Over this summer Australians have suffered devastating disasters, including cyclones, flooding and bushfires,” said Mark Dreyfus.
“Supporting workers, small businesses and farmers following a disaster and keeping them in their local area is key to long term community recovery.
“If workers lose their job following a natural disaster, often they will be forced to relocate to find new work.
“Training new workers takes time and money. This payment will mean that workers, small businesses and farmers will be financially supported so that they can remain in the community and return to work after recovery and rebuilding efforts conclude.”
The Disaster Recovery Allowance will replace the current Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy payment, which is delivered via an ex gratia payment.
Once passed, the Disaster Recovery Allowance will start on 1 October 2013.
As this article notes, the current Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy is an ex gratia payment, meaning it is paid without any obligation. The money for this payment is appropriated by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) s 32B and the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) r 16 and Schedule 1AA. This Subsidy provides direct income support to individuals who have experienced a loss of income as a result of a natural disaster. The payment is a fortnightly payment equivalent to the maximum rate of Newstart or Youth Allowance. Putting the Disaster Recovery Allowance into legislation makes the process more transparent, anyone can see who is eligible, the value of the grant and it represents prior planning rather than ad hoc post event arrangements.
The Commonwealth also provides direct assistance to people in disasters via the Social Security system. The Minister for Social Security may declare that an event is a major disaster if, in the Minister’s opinion, the event “is a disaster that has such a significant impact on individuals that a government response is required” (Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 36). The Social Security Act then allows the payment of the Disaster Recovery Payment to Australian citizens and residents who have been adversely affected by a major disaster (Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1061K).
Under the NDRRA scheme the Commonwealth provides support to the States to reimburse eligible state expenditure on disaster risk and recovery. There are four categories of eligible expenditure, category A is “emergency assistance given to individuals to alleviate their personal hardship or distress arising as a direct result of a natural disaster. Eligible measures under Category A include the provision of emergency clothing and accommodation, removal of debris, emergency repairs to housing”. It follows that the Commonwealth also funds this type of assistance but not as direct payments to individuals, but payments to the States and Territories if they have made those payments to individuals.
Payment of these funds is a morally difficult issue. We want to help our neighbours affected by disasters but, on the other hand, do these payments reduce resilience and ‘shared responsibility’? Further why do people receive such assistance if their house is lost as one of a number of properties affected by a bushfire or flood, but not if there home is the only home destroyed in a typical housefire? Added to these payments are the payments individuals and communities receive from charitable public donations. Do we stand with our neighbours in times of disaster, or is planning for loss of income, loss of housing etc something we should all make preparations for via insurance, increased pre-planning to increase resilience and in some cases, not living in a hazard prone environment?
Michael Eburn
22 March 2013
Australian Emergency Law 
Once again who declares what is a disaster.
A family in a suburban home which burns down from an electrical fault is just as devestated as a family that loses their home by wildfire or flood.
We lost our house in 2009 by a bushfire ( one of three houses, numerous sheds and caravans) which was NOT declared a Natural Disaster by the then NSW State Minister Steve Whan so none of these measures current or proposed came into effect.
The hurdles that one has to pass are set so high for these schemes that they are in effect just window dressing to make Governments and their Ministers look as though they are doing something.
The other issue is that our home was underinsured because we only increased our cover by CPI each year.
Cost of building had balloned beyond all expectation since I did not work in or had contact with the costs associated with building a new house.
Having a simple cost of building calculator available on the web would of made life a lot easier for us.
Allan, sorry to hear about your loss, but you do raise an important issue; for a person who loses there house it’s a tragedy and an emergency whether there’s is one of three, or one of three hundred that is lost. There is a serious philosophical problem justifying these sorts of payments, partly for that reason and because it goes against the idea of shared responsibility. Governments want to provide emergency payments and income support in part to be seen to be ‘standing with’ the community and to stimulate local economic activity (it’s better to give people money that they can spend locally rather than donate goods and put the local suppliers out of business) but on the other hand, why should taxpayers foot these bills?
Putting aside the philosophical questions, the answer to your question is that the States declare a matter to be a natural disaster for the purpose of triggering the NDRRA which is the commonwealth/state cost sharing arrangements. To trigger the payments under the Social Security Act it is the Minister for Social Security who decides whether or not an event is a major disaster – s 36 says “The Minister may determine in writing that an event is a major disaster if the Minister is satisfied that the event is a disaster that has such a significant impact on individuals that a government response is required.” It’s entirely up to the Minister’s discretion perhaps confirming that “they are in effect just window dressing to make Governments and their Ministers look as though they are doing something.”
During the evidence before the Senate on the levy introduced after the Queensland floods, it was said that the amount the levy was going to raise was so small, as a percentage of the Commonwealth’s total commitments under the NDRRA, it could be paid out of normal revenue without making any long term economic difference, but it was also said the levy was a public way of being seen to be showing solidarity. On the other hand, I’m told it reduced voluntary donations as people weren’t going to donate AND be taxed.
On the issue of insurance, I won’t mention the company but there is at least one that has given up insuring homes for agreed value but instead just offers to rebuild them. I’m told their assessor’s found it too hard to tell people they were under-insured.