A Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly], “‘Calamity Jane’ role for Mavis,” The Australian Financial Review, February 22, 1974, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 19-21, as “Disaster Relief.”

As the picture unfolded of the recent floods, first in western Queensland and north-western N.S.W., and then later the tragic floods in Brisbane, we quickly heard from the most responsible quarters the demand for some kind of disaster relief plan so as to be ready for similar disasters.

This demand usually had two prongs. The first was that there should be a much better organisation ready to tackle similar calamities. Evidently N.S.W. has the pre-eminent organisation of the States and many people pressed for the establishment of even better organisations in other States, and they usually coupled civil defence and disaster action together and this seems sensible.

The only real problem here is how much money and resources to devote to the organisation. It is easy, after disaster strikes, to say we ought to have a bigger and better organisation. But putting more resources into this means less money is being devoted to other pressing and more popular purposes. It isn’t easy to know how many resources to tie up in this way. If we knew that a disaster was imminent we would know how much effort to spend in tackling it. But disasters don’t behave in such a nice well-regulated way.

All you can do is to make the best judgement you can, sure in the knowledge that if disaster doesn’t strike, you will be criticised for not doing other more popular things. And if disaster comes, you know you will be criticised for not doing enough. Life is indeed hard!

The second part of the demand is for money to be set aside for relief. This is an understandable reaction, particularly as the harrowing television pictures appear on the screen. “Why doesn’t the government have a fund set aside for generous and immediate help?” people ask angrily and understandably.

Mavis is one of these and for once her reaction was not motivated by baser political motives. “You must do something quickly dear”, she advised. “I’m not worrying about votes this time. Look at the plight of those poor people in Brisbane. Make the government hold a large fund in reserve so that we can be both generous and merciful.”

But it isn’t as easy as that. “What kind of disasters should we have in mind”, I asked hopefully, “only floods?” “Of course not, dear”, she said. “Bushfires too, and all other natural calamaties.”

“Do you want me to help everyone who suffers in such disasters?” I asked. “Or only the ones in real need?” “Of course, only those who really need it”, was her swift, feminine reaction. But that means that the chap who has insured himself against floods will get nothing because he wouldn’t be in real need. That’s not much incentive for him to pay for flood insurance.

And what about small disasters? It is usually as painful for a farmer to be burnt out in a small fire as in a big one. Does Mavis mean that all farmers who suffer from small natural disasters should be helped?

And what about droughts? Some districts are drought prone and so land is cheaper there. Are people there to be helped in the same way as people in less drought prone districts? And a chap who conserves fodder at great expense to meet drought when it comes, is he not to be helped while his more careless and happy-go-lucky neighbour gets relief just because he didn’t help himself?

And is rust in wheat a natural disaster? It seems so to the chap whose crop is lost in this way.

So it just isn’t as easy as Mavis thinks.