For the most part I agree with her article (
found here).
I was struck by only one thing when I saw the news footage - and it wasnt the devastation. It was the attitude of locals, in one report I saw overt demands for piles of money to fix everything made on two seperate ocassions directly to the PM by locals.
Northern queensland is an area that will be hit by cyclones - no ifs or buts about it. We've known this for a long time, larry is merely the last in a long line of cyclones to hit the region.
On this basis I think it is reasonable for residents to expect cyclones and take precautions - for instance insurance against the losses that may eventuate would be a good start.
This to me reflects the 'hand-out' culture of the Bush (and heres the bit that will send Katie over the edge). It seems that we no longer expect rural australia to plan for the future.
Just as they seem shocked that there has been a cyclone they seem similarily shocked that there is a drought. Newsflash: These things happen in the areas that you
choose to live in - always have and always will. Because of this it should be your responsibility to plan for such occurenses not ours to bail you out every single time.
Why exactly is it our problem that you have not prepared for a drought? As far as I'm concerned we should not be giving hand-outs to those that have failed to prepare, they should go to the wall if the drought drags them there.
By continuing to provide hand-outs we support those who continue to engage in inefficient farming practises. Basically put they will never learn to swim if we always build a bridge.
And as a pre-emptive to the counter-arguments I am about to see:
Argument one: What will you eat if we all go bust you jackass! The top 20% of farms produce 80% of what we eat - it is not these 20% that we are supporting, they are 'good farmers'. And an advantage of poorly prepared ones going to the wall is that these good farmers will be able to expand and good farming will become more prevalent. Letting farmers fend for themselves will ensure that the strong survive and prosper the result being in the long run higher output not lower.
Argument two: Romantic notions of bush miscellaneous Try these in the Telegraph, they dont fly here, maybe I'm a heartless bastard or maybe I'm just rational.
Argument three: we did plan Obviously not well enough - the results speak for themselves.
Note: An interesting lecture was presented on this topic by an academic from ADFA to environmental students at the ANU - I have lifted some concepts.
