"The government isn't doing enough"

and "they weren't prepared" and "they should have been in here before now"...and more.

There have been many complaints in the media over the past week or so that the response to the floods in the eastern states has not been good.  It has been a real opportunity for the political opposition to criticise government - both federal and state. 

There have been complaints that "the government" hasn't been in there immediately, that they didn't deploy the defence forces fast enough, that the  "flood mitigation" programs still aren't in place, that they "weren't prepared even after the bush fires" and more. People are frustrated and angry. Everyone wants help immediately.

And what they want is impossible.

I know something about disaster management - not a lot and not as much as I should but I do know something. I know enough to tell me that what people want and what it is possible to provide are often two very different things. 

It isn't always possible to go in "immediately". If it was then there would not be a disaster situation. In this case it simply has not been possible to go into some areas where there is fast flowing water, obstructions that cannot be seen, debris causing hazards to everyone and much more. Yes, some people need to be rescued - often people who have left it too late to leave on their own. Others will need to be rescued through no fault of their own. Yes, you might be able to employ a helicopter to help someone from the roof of a house but such people have to be located and highly trained personnel have to do the job. It's not simple. What we see on television or in an adventure film may make it look simple but it is not simple.

There are also huge areas to be assessed and decisions made about who needs help the most. Do you save one child or an elderly couple? How do you handle the dam that is threatening to spill without causing even more damage? Where do you start the clean up...and who is going to do it? Those are questions for which there are no clear cut answers.

And there are other things to think about. Is "the government" responsible for all the decisions made about choosing to live in a flood prone area or a bush fire area? Should they be doing more? 

Think about the fire situation for a moment. Friends of ours built a home in a bush fire prone area. They thought long and hard about doing it and decided to "take the risk". They wanted to live in bush land. 

It's a beautiful area if you like natural bush land. But K.... and B.... also made some other decisions. Their home has been built in a way that reduces the fire risk as much as possible. The land around the house was cleared to the distance advised.What has been planted close to the house is designed as a fire retardant - vegetation that does not burn easily. There is a sprinkler system which covers the entire property. K... checked on it or had his son-in-law check on it each week. Now his son-in-law does what K... can no longer do. Yes, it helps his son-in-law lives next door and has a similar arrangement. They have put a lot of work in over the years and the local council has recognised that. Even now people are sent to see "how it should be done". 

But other people don't necessarily do that. They want to "leave it as nature intended". They don't clear the undergrowth. They have other fire hazards right around the house. They don't have a sprinkler system or, if they do, they don't maintain it. 

And, when a fire comes through, they are not responsible. No, it is "the government" which is responsible. The government has not done this or that or acted fast enough or had enough equipment or enough people...and so on.

Yes, there was a flood mitigation strategy which was supposed to be put in place in the eastern states. It would not have solved all the problems but it might have reduced those same problems. The money was there too. So why didn't it happen? 

It didn't happen for much the same sort of reasons that individual people don't want to do what should be done in a bush fire prone area. People tried to prevent some measures being taken because of the impact on what they see as "the natural environment". They want to live an urban lifestyle in a rural environment. It can't be done. Those who have delayed the measures which should have been put in place are now some of those who are complaining the loudest about the disaster. No, it isn't their fault. Of course it isn't their fault. They are the good guys, the people on the side of "the environment".  It is all "the government's fault". 

Perhaps it is time for media to be more honest about what is really happening out there. People need to be informed about the need to be more responsible, about the need to do what will sometimes appear to be contradictory. They need to know that taking action might save koala habitat instead of destroying it and much more. (Yes, if farmers had been allowed to put in the fire breaks they wanted to put in those fires would not have been nearly as catastrophic.)

The media needs to be more responsible too. They need to let people know more about the impact that vocal minority is having. It isn't just "the government's fault". We need to take more responsibility too.