Bushfires 2019/2020!

[Flying mermaid]

Two fires around CBR a/p again. Emergency level. EDIT, all flights affected. Home - Canberra Airport

Winds are really bad today as well

 

[TomVexille]

60% does seem on the high side, but I’m not opposed to a small proportion of money being held for future bushfires at least..

There will no doubt be some small bushfires next summer (hopefully they will only be small). There might affect a community and a dozen houses. There will be no major international social media driven campaigns to aid them with charity. Who’s going to look after them? I suppose on a smaller scale, the government and others in that same community can.

And that's sensible. But I think that holding 2/3rds of the money, if it is true, is wrong.

 

[dajop]

And that's sensible. But I think that holding 2/3rds of the money, if it is true, is wrong.

I would not be surprised at a bit of "fake" news here and there . Someone could have easily made a comment at some point "We're only distributing 1/3 of the available funds for immediate relief, the other 2/3 will be held back to ensure resources are available to rebuild communities", and the sound bite or take home message becomes "2/3 will be held back..." And off we go ....

 

[Pushka]

I would not be surprised at a bit of "fake" news here and there . Someone could have easily made a comment at some point "We're only distributing 1/3 of the available funds for immediate relief, the other 2/3 will be held back to ensure resources are available to rebuild communities", and the sound bite or take home message becomes "2/3 will be held back..." And off we go ....

Sure but I think people have donated for immediate relief for people who have lost everything and need help now (food, clothing, shelter) and not to rebuild communities because I don’t see that as Red Cross work. But you may have been using that phrase as an example and not literal.

 

[dajop]

But you may have been using that phrase as an example and not literal.

Yes correct, just an example not to be taken literally.

I am guessing as well there is some sort of limit to the speed at which such large sums of money can be handed out and spent as well. Someone has to be there processing the bank transfers, cheques, etc, organising the logistics etc etc. It's not as if you get $50m on Monday and can suddenly distribute $5000 cheques to 20,000 people on Tuesday.

 

[RooFlyer]

From the Oz story I mentioned above:

The Red Cross has moved to reassure people who have donated $115 million for bushfire relief that all of the money will be spent on fire ravaged communities and not stockpiled for future natural disasters.

The charity was slammed after it admitted that just $30 million of $115m raised since July had been distributed to fire victims and that it planned to withhold funds for future natural disasters such as floods and cyclones.

NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance said yesterday that he was “furious” charitable organisations are sitting on tens of millions of dollars and not passing it on swiftly to desperate residents.

St Vincent’s de Paul has raised more than $12m and has distributed just over $1m to households while the Salvation Army has raised $40m and has handed out $5m.

Australian Red Cross director Noel Clement said yesterday it was “prudent to plan for the inevitable disasters to come so our (fund) remains in place to scale up and to respond when cyclones and floods hit”.

He said the charity had already distributed $30m, including 559 cash grants of $10,000 for people who have had their homes destroyed.

But on Thursday morning Mr Clement denied the charity was “stockpiling’’ money raised as part of bushfire relief and said the funds would only be spent on bushfire victims, now and into the future.

“We have allocated $30 million for immediate relief for people who have lost their homes and those grants are going out at the moment,” Mr Clement told the Today show. “This is for bushfires, this is not holding back for other disasters I can assure you that.”

He said the Red Cross was working hard to approve grants of $10,000 as quickly as possible.

So $30 mill out the door now, $80+ mill to go ....

 

[Flying mermaid]

The two Canberra fires have merged into one. The airport site says all flights are suspended, but Canberra Times is reporting some are departing, but no arrivals.

 

[Himeno]

TT, VA and SQ have cancelled CBR flights for rest of the day. QF is operating "Limited Services".

 

[Quickstatus]

Re distribution of donations:

It is difficult accounting wise to make sure donations are distributed equitably. The numbers of people in need, degree of need, and the influx of funding is DYNAMIC and the final numbers are unknown. if you have decided to give $10000 to each "needy" entity (person, couple, family or however you define it) you need to be able to give $10000 to all. Its all well and good to dole it out really fast and be generous, but what if you run out of money and peple are still in need?.

It is impossible to know what your funding envelope is and it is easy to scam donations by pretending to be one of the needy, And an internal ceiling of 10% of costs may be unrealistic if you need to do it faster.

So a conservative approach is necessary. Could they have distributed it quicker but they need people to volunteer and be trained, and enough administrative backoffice to cope with the demand?. Not as easy as it sounds.

To those who think their donation should be 100% without costs of managing that donation should volunteer their time and help.

 

[Pushka]

Re distribution of donations:

It is difficult accounting wise to make sure donations are distributed equitably. The numbers of people in need, degree of need, and the influx of funding is DYNAMIC and the final numbers are unknown. if you have decided to give $10000 to each "needy" entity (person, couple, family or however you define it) you need to be able to give $10000 to all. Its all well and good to dole it out really fast and be generous, but what if you run out of money and peple are still in need?.

It is impossible to know what your funding envelope is and it is easy to scam donations by pretending to be one of the needy, And an internal ceiling of 10% of costs may be unrealistic if you need to do it faster.

So a conservative approach is necessary. Could they have distributed it quicker but they need people to volunteer and be trained, and enough administrative backoffice to cope with the demand?. Not as easy as it sounds.

To those who think their donation should be 100% without costs of managing that donation should volunteer their time and help.

Agree with that however it was reported by media - which may of course might not be true - that donations for a previous tragedy - were likewise withheld for future ‘contingencies’.

 

[Quickstatus]

I can see why they wanted to keep some in the contingency column. It is actually very hard to ask for donations to top up previous donations and the Red Cross and Salvos will be there long after people lose interest

The Red Cross has done this before, and 'Im not suggesting anything nefarious. They have dealt with disasters a lot more than the media critics, politicians and armchair critics and they are in for the long haul, unlike the FIFO politicians, celebrities, and others some of whom are virtue signaller.

 

[Pushka]

I can see why they wanted to keep some in the contingency column. It is actually very hard to ask for donations to top up previous donations and the Red Cross and Salvos will be there long after people lose interest

The Red Cross has done this before, and 'Im not suggesting anything nefarious. They have dealt with disasters a lot more than the media critics, politicians and armchair critics and they are in for the long haul, unlike the FIFO politicians, celebrities, and others some of whom are virtue signaller.

But if I donate to a bushfire situation then that is where I want the money to go to. If I want to donate to another tragedy say an earthquake then I will do similar. Any suggestion that funds are not going, in the main (less rightful expenses) to the specific tragedy will cause people to donate elsewhere next time. I don’t consider it their role to be long term in such situations but rather immediate relief. Maybe others think differently.

 

[get me outta here]

Just to clarify, the Red Cross has said that they are getting money out of the door right now and then some will be available for people as they rebuild. I think a lot of people who donated were thinking of people’s future housing.
They’re not saying it’s for future disasters they’re saying it’s for the people now who will need money as time goes on.

 

[Quickstatus]

But it is going to the bushfire.
they are not using it anywhere else

 

[Flying mermaid]

But it is going to the bushfire.
they are not using it anywhere else

Now

 

[get me outta here]

They have made a statement in print that is all being used for this current disaster.

 

[Quickstatus]

It was never destined for other purposes

 

[dajop]

It was never destined for other purposes

Oh it was in the alternative click bait universe.

 

[RooFlyer]

It was never destined for other purposes

.. except admin. The longer they hold onto the funds, the more will be lost to admin (not saying thats not legitimate, but it will happen).

 

[Quickstatus]

Maybe others think differently.

I do. Its a way of doing the greatest good for the greatest number. They can spend it all by the end of summer, the bushfires stop, the public/media lose interest (happened in the2003 canberra fires), and the money is not there to continue to provide ongoing supporting these communities . Too much too quickly is not good.

.. except admin. The longer they hold onto the funds, the more will be lost to admin (not saying thats not legitimate, but it will happen).

I think the other way round
To increase disbursement time means more manpower which costs more pushing up the cost in % terms. A 10% ceiling may mean that its easier to stay under that ceiling if disbursements are spread out a bit