Act, don’t react

“The time has come the walrus said, to talk of many things – of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings – and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings.”
Lewis Carroll was writing about a world where the normal rules didn’t apply; and where commonsense was far from common. Of late, it is all too easy to think we’ve slipped down that rabbit hole and ended up in that alternate universe.

Let’s think for a moment about the recent spate of natural disasters we’ve seen across the country. It is clear the time has come for us to think more seriously about mitigating the cost of disasters rather than continually reacting after the event.

The cost to the public, to taxpayers, of compensating for losses incurred in floods, fires, cyclones, droughts and other natural disasters is out of hand when so much of the damage that is caused is either preventable or should have been insurable.

There was a really interesting discussion on ABC Radio National this week between what might be termed civil security experts, people who study the risks and costs of natural disasters upon society.
Dr Deanne Bird, a research fellow with Risk Frontiers, an organisation established under the auspices of the Insurance Council of Australia, says that every dollar spent on prevention of, and preparation for, natural disasters saves four dollars spent on reparations and recovery assistance.

More than $1 billion has been paid out in response to floods in Queensland over the last decade – but only $100 million has been spent on prevention. We should by now have worked out that floods are likely to happen in Queensland, and be preparing for them rather than reacting almost with surprise each time another community is inundated.

At the national level, we are spending only $20 million a year natural disaster resilience, our ability to withstand storm and tempest. Yet we spend billions on recovery efforts after the event. NSW invested heavily in flood mitigation infrastructure after disastrous floods in the 1950s; and the payoff can be seen in the limited damage bills after floods in more recent times in that state.
We are obviously slow learners.

If the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists is right, our problems are not going to reduce as the years roll on, so we need to get used to the idea and start investing in being ready for these events.

There are so many issues that we have to address to get to that stage. I am sure they will form part of the terms of reference for the inquiry that the government has promised to hold. Doubtless, they will also be of interest to the Senate inquiry into recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events.

From the farming perspective, three issues stand out.

The first is the hurdles facing farmers wanting to reduce fuel loads on our land through regular fuel reduction burns. farmers believe there is too much red tape surrounding the permit process. That is clearly the case on occasions, but many of the hurdles may well be perceived rather than real. In particular, increasing public opposition to any burning off and more frequent opposition from neighburs are certainly deterrents to farmers looking to undertake fuel reduction activities. There is an important program of work here to increase public awareness of the important role fire plays in managing both farming and natural landscapes.

The second is the need for a good neighbour charter between private landowners and those responsible for publicly-owned land. We are constantly concerned about the impact that wildlife, fire and weeds spreading from public land have on the environmental, productive and safety significance of private land.

We made this comment in our State Budget submission to the government: “The boundary fence doesn’t stop the spread of fire, wildlife or weeds. However, responsible management on both sides of the fence will assist to control spread of these risks from public onto private land. Private landholders have the right to expect that they will not be adversely affected (financially or in any other way) by circumstances created on neighbouring properties, especially when their neighbour is a government agency.” In other words, government must come to the party and pay their share of boundary interface costs.

When things get out of hand, farmers find they often cannot be adequately covered for their costs. That gives rise to the third issue I want to raise, the need for what is termed multi-peril insurance. It is virtually impossible to insure crop losses; and often commercially unviable to insure for the full cost fencing, especially where the government doesn’t pay their way. If we could get reasonably priced insurance cover, then the need for extensive and expensive tax-payer funded responses to disasters such as bush fires would be reduced.

This type of insurance is available in many other countries in the world, almost without exception underwritten by governments. We have been pressing for similar arrangements to be put in place in Australia. Yes, there is an ongoing cost to government – but the offset would be in limiting the need for handouts after a disaster. An added advantage would be in encouraging farmers to take steps to mitigate risks facing their businesses. If some form of multi-peril insurance were available on reasonable terms, and a farmer was not prepared to put their hand in their pocket to cover their losses, then they should not expect any handouts after a disaster.

We need to have a community conversation about these sorts of issues. We can change things, but only if we focus on the future, rather than react to the past.