Don't blur the responsibilities

Comments on Anthony Bergin “Response needs commonwealth co-ordination”, 15/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/response-needs-commonwealth-co-ordination/story-e6frg6zo-1225987433114

This is another idea that is a bit off the mark in the context of the Australian federation and the division of responsibilities between the two levels of government.

The only areas that might need a national or Commonwealth response are cross border issues and the mechanisms where a State in emergence can call on national / commonwealth resources such as the army, as well as consistency in dealing with different States for similar disasters and overtime as the recent inconsistency between the PM offers for Queenslanders and Western Australians reflects.

It is far better for the responsibilities lie clearly with one level of government, such as planning, coordination, and emergence responses.

Further, there should be accountability for poor planning, information supply, and non-compliance and insurances that lie with both government and individuals. Government should take its responsibilities in settlement and building planning, regulations and supply information. Individuals must consider the costs of potential natural disasters in deciding and choosing where to build, buy and or live, and take out the appropriate insurances.

Clearly, one of the lessons from the recent floods disasters is the forecast and modelling of the likely scenarios. That work should be strengthened to minimise losses. This may be another area where some national resources could achieve better economies of scale.

Good intention but poor idea

Comments on Rahel Carter “Flood insurance must be accessible to all”, 13//01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/flood-insurance-must-be-accessible-to-all/story-e6frg6zo-1225986572360

This proposal might appear to be a good idea at a time of a floods crisis, it is highly likely that people will realise it would be wrong to do that when cool heads prevail after the heightened emotions during the current crisis.

Rachel Carter may ask why.

The simple reason is that doing what she proposed would make some people reduce their own responsibilities in considering the location of their homes and residences, that would in turn make the impacts of any natural disasters unnecessarily much more severe in terms of damages to properties and lives.
It is a typical issue of moral hazard.

It is not a good idea to take away insurance agencies the right to determine the costs of insurance according to the real circumstances and risks.

Government regulations may be necessary, but undue legality prescriptions can be very harmful.

There must be sufficient information available to the public for them to consider location matters in terms of potential natural disasters.

The recommendations from the inquiry into the Victoria black Saturday bushfires have implications for the issues here.

Lessons from fox attacks on babies in London

ABC report by Europe correspondent Philip Williams says that "Twin baby girls are being treated in hospital for serious injuries thought to have been caused by a fox in London."

See "Sleeping babies 'attacked by fox'", 7/06/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/07/2919773.htm?section=justin

The report also says:
"A police spokesman says they are not treating the incident as suspicious.

Reports of fox attacks on babies are not unknown, with the last one occurring in Britain in 2002.
Foxes are common in the British capital, where they live in parks and disused land."

If foxes attack human babies in people's homes, it means their natural environment is severely threatened; otherwise they would not dare to do such dangerous things at such high risk to their lives.

We human beings need to consider this issue and ensure a peaceful environment for animals as well as for ourselves.