Of earthquakes and other things

or how to claim money without working for it.

There has apparently been an earthquake in the Top End. It was centred underwater and out at sea but still felt by the residents. It was a prolonged event - almost two minutes apparently and came in at over seven on the Richter scale. That's quite a quake. If the epicentre had been on land and in an urban area then there would likely have been a lot of damage.

I would prefer to stay out of earthquake zones. At the same time I wonder how many people will make claims for minor damage to their properties "because that's what we pay insurance for" without thinking through the consequences.

The western part of the Top End is also experiencing issues with flooding at present. No, that part of the world is not a dry desert. There are rivers and plenty of vegetation exists. There have been attempts to commercially crop up there too. As with many other government schemes these have not been an absolute failure but they have not been a success either.  Distance and greed have much to do with this. It could still be done but there would be a need to recognise that different sorts of crops would need to be grown and the returns would need to be lower. It would be hard work. 

A properly run scheme with much smaller returns could help to provide some of the fresh fruit and vegetables communities in the Top End need. It seems nobody wants to do the necessary work and there are other convenient cultural "issues" which will prevent it.

At the other end of the country there is the leader of a state's aboriginal group claiming the group has ownership of a vessel washed up on the shore of land they say they own. It landed there after losing a rudder in the Sydney-Hobart yacht race. The aboriginals want the vessel handed over to them or to have a third of the original value of the vessel given to them.  The law of concerning shipwrecks can be quite complex but this appears to be nothing more than a grab for money for which there is no need to work. Will the aboriginal group succeed in their quest for money? Almost certainly yes. To do otherwise would be political suicide.

I have been thinking of other examples too, examples of where "compensation" is paid or money is handed over to "disadvantaged" groups without any proper expectations. Not so long ago a group I belonged to thought about applying for a small grant to do something. It would have been an interesting and worthwhile exercise but we decided against it. We decided against it because we felt that what we would be giving back was not enough to justify asking for the grant even when we had been told we would almost certainly be successful. It was the right decision. As one member of the group put it, "At least we won't look as if we were just looking for money."

We all know the saying "money doesn't grow on trees" but there still seems to be a belief that "it's ours" or "we have a right to it" and "if I can get it I will". One of the neighbours and I were discussing the Voice proposal yesterday. I would have expected her to be absolutely and unthinkingly in favour of it. What she said surprised me, 

"I won't be voting for it because I think we need to reassess how we help. It's no good just giving out money for programmes. People have to learn to work for it and give back."

I wonder if that would change anything?