Australia Fire storm.

**Coldrider** · 9th January 2020, 20:17

Originally Posted by MaxPenguin

Can you stay on topic please, but seeing as how you are nosey, I haven't seen anything motorcycle related that has inspired me to contribute yet. If the forum bosses don't like non motorcycle chat then why have a rant or rave/ off topic section at all?

Exactly correct, without rant and rave Kiwibiker is nothing.

**FJRider** · 9th January 2020, 20:34

Originally Posted by MaxPenguin

Can you stay on topic please, but seeing as how you are nosey, I haven't seen anything motorcycle related that has inspired me to contribute yet. If the forum bosses don't like non motorcycle chat then why have a rant or rave/ off topic section at all?

One reason that the post count of members is not counted is ... this is a motorcycle forum. The lack of inclusion of the "Off Topic" posts is because this is a motorcycle Forum. Post count also enhances your ability to increase the amount of "Rep" you can award/deduct for green/red "rep" should you like/hate another members post.

Read site rules for a more in depth explanation of awarding or deducting reputation points. (A favourite "game" some can play)

Try the "Game" yourself ...

**Berries** · 9th January 2020, 21:34

Originally Posted by FJRider

I work on Stewart island.

Not for Real Journeys?

**FJRider** · 10th January 2020, 05:19

Originally Posted by Berries

Not for Real Journeys?

Nope. For Sanford on the Salmon farm. 7 days on and 7 off.

Each Monday I'm going one way across the strait or the other ... WITH Real Journeys though.

**mashman** · 10th January 2020, 06:52

If you had all of the resources you required at your finger tips and you could muster them within 72 hours to fight any fire, would you send what you could afford, or all of it? Because all of it is not a choice. This is solely due to budget constraint. (partly highlighted when some fella mentioned that there were more planes dotted about the place, but they needed to be paid for before the could be used out of state... but also partly because it is absolutely true, budget constraint limits response)

Put it this way, if you were the PM and you knew you had all of the resources you required dotted around the country and potentially from overseas to potentially put out the fire of the century, wouldn't you send everything that you could lay your hands on given the destruction and hardship that comes with it and after it? ONLY if you can afford it is the current state of play.

The fires will continue until they run out of fuel. That's the way nature does it. Our response is far from adequate given the resource available. Put it this way, would you not have "ordered" (logically volunteered etc...) tankers that go to and from water bottling plants to deliver to where the fire is? ONLY if you can afford it.

Our response to fire is budget constrained irrespective of who is PM.

**neels** · 10th January 2020, 09:17

Originally Posted by mashman

Put it this way, if you were the PM and you knew you had all of the resources you required dotted around the country and potentially from overseas to potentially put out the fire of the century, wouldn't you send everything that you could lay your hands on given the destruction and hardship that comes with it and after it? ONLY if you can afford it is the current state of play.

Our response to fire is budget constrained irrespective of who is PM.

The other consideration is that you don't necessarily send all of your resources to one place because that leaves you unprotected at all of the other places.

Nobody wants to pay the cost of having resources to cover 100% of possible scenarios, maybe design for 80-90% and hope the worst never happens. I'm sure the very same people who are complaining about the lack of response from firefighters would have been moaning like crazy if tax was increased to pay for firefighting equipment and people that sit idle for 99.9% of the time.

Originally Posted by mashman

The fires will continue until they run out of fuel. That's the way nature does it.

Interesting that a number of the fires appear to have been started by humans, possibly encouraged by decisions made by humans on how bush is managed, but ultimately nature will decide when they are finished. A news report last night on one of the fires said that either the weather changes, or it keeps burning until it gets to the coast, the humans may be able to manage or mitigate small areas but there's no chance of putting the fire out completely.

**TheDemonLord** · 10th January 2020, 09:43

On an aside - Metallica donated a bunch of cash to the Australian wild fire effort - with no mention of Politics, Climate Change other other Agenda in the press release other than 'Here's some money to help with a terrible situation'

Many people would do well to follow that example.

**mashman** · 10th January 2020, 10:32

Originally Posted by neels

The other consideration is that you don't necessarily send all of your resources to one place because that leaves you unprotected at all of the other places.

Nobody wants to pay the cost of having resources to cover 100% of possible scenarios, maybe design for 80-90% and hope the worst never happens. I'm sure the very same people who are complaining about the lack of response from firefighters would have been moaning like crazy if tax was increased to pay for firefighting equipment and people that sit idle for 99.9% of the time.

Oh absolutely there are many arguments against doing such a thing, as you say it leaves other areas vulnerable. But there are levels of vulnerability given that some areas are in imminent danger, whilst others just sit and wait to see if the fire will make it that far instead of joining an effort it collectively try to smash it to stop it spreading.

For sure. I wasn't trying to say that the fire service should be increased to cater for the impossible to predict, moreover that all of the resources we can spare should be going into dealing with it when it does happen... hence water going to fight the fire instead of joggers thirst (as well as as many locals as possible). As you say, we have what we need for the most part in terms of firefighters and firefighting year in year out, but sometimes ya need to deploy more, and the associated cost limits the response. One way or another the taxpayer is going to pay... even if it is only higher insurance premiums to cover the new risk levels and lost revenue to payouts.

Originally Posted by neels

Interesting that a number of the fires appear to have been started by humans, possibly encouraged by decisions made by humans on how bush is managed, but ultimately nature will decide when they are finished. A news report last night on one of the fires said that either the weather changes, or it keeps burning until it gets to the coast, the humans may be able to manage or mitigate small areas but there's no chance of putting the fire out completely.

Farcanal... but to be expected I guess. Climate change or not, we really are setup to fail where we ?can't/refuse? to apply ourselves accordingly.

**neels** · 10th January 2020, 10:37

Originally Posted by mashman

One way or another the taxpayer is going to pay... even if it is only higher insurance premiums to cover the new risk levels and lost revenue to payouts.

True. One way or another an event of this magnitude is going to bite, either spending up front to minimise or prevent it, or to clean up the mess afterwards.

You only have to look at the recent earthquakes in nz to see this, in particular underinsurance of public assets leading to huge ongoing costs funded by ratepayers.

**mashman** · 10th January 2020, 10:43

Originally Posted by neels

True. One way or another an event of this magnitude is going to bite, either spending up front to minimise or prevent it, or to clean up the mess afterwards.

You only have to look at the recent earthquakes in nz to see this, in particular underinsurance of public assets leading to huge ongoing costs funded by ratepayers.

Aye... the flipside being the required economic growth as more builders are required and imported etc... to spend the payout money replacing that which was burned. Wonder how close insurance and rebuilding costs are?

**MaxPenguin** · 10th January 2020, 12:35

Originally Posted by mashman

Aye... the flipside being the required economic growth as more builders are required and imported etc... to spend the payout money replacing that which was burned. Wonder how close insurance and rebuilding costs are?

I wonder how many of the people moaning about the Aussie government not fronting up due to lack of money, have participated in tax free cashies.

**onearmedbandit** · 10th January 2020, 12:44

Originally Posted by MaxPenguin

I wonder how many of the people moaning about the Aussie government not fronting up due to lack of money, have participated in tax free cashies.

Of course. Not many people enjoy paying their taxes, and of those many will be happy to do what they can to pay less be it cashies, tax havens, trust funds, incorrectly declaring income, income splitting etc. But they're quick to criticise when the government says the coffers are empty.

**TheDemonLord** · 10th January 2020, 12:56

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

Of course. Not many people enjoy paying their taxes, and of those many will be happy to do what they can to pay less be it cashies, tax havens, trust funds, incorrectly declaring income, income splitting etc. But they're quick to criticise when the government says the coffers are empty.

There was an Economist I think (could be wrong on their occupation) who outlined an argument about Tax Loopholes and it was something like:

"It is everyone's Civic duty to pay the least amount of Tax legally" - they went on to outline points around it's a bulwark against lazy law making, government overreach etc. etc. Was an interesting Point of View.

**onearmedbandit** · 10th January 2020, 13:05

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

There was an Economist I think (could be wrong on their occupation) who outlined an argument about Tax Loopholes and it was something like:

"It is everyone's Civic duty to pay the least amount of Tax legally" - they went on to outline points around it's a bulwark against lazy law making, government overreach etc. etc. Was an interesting Point of View.

Without a doubt, paying more than you are legally required is just dumb. Lying about how much you should have to pay is different and in certain situations illegal.