Let’s Splash Cash on Elvis

| February 23, 2009

The best way to express our gratitude to volunteer services would be to ease some of their burden by not relying on them so heavily. 

I just overheard two women discussing their one-off government bonus. They'll be spending it on fixing up the car and wedding photos. So the good news is at least they're not hoarding it.  

Still, it feels a bit lame to hope their efforts will do more to shelter us from the GFC than push up inflation.

If Australia needs to go on a shopping spree to get the cash flowing, then a government purchasing binge would be a better option.  This would allow us to stimulate the economy in a much more targeted way, both in terms of what was purchased and where it was purchased from.

Instead of scattered small scale one-off purchases imagine if all that handout money was spent investing in Australian companies on projects that would improve our national infrastructure?

I desperately want to believe the decision wasn't made based on winning votes. But if it was it's a huge shame and probably unnecessary, Australians are not so callous that the only way in to our hearts is through our pockets.

Timing is important though. With the devastating effects of the Victorian bushfires are fresh in the public consciousness now would be a perfect time to inject more funding into emergency services.

With the billions being spent on "defence" in Iraq and Afghanistan it is amazing that there isn't more resentment that our domestic emergency services are so poorly equipped to defend us from such a certain threat. As shocking as the loss of life has been, none of us can fairly argue that this has come as a shock. We've seen tragic bushfires before and we'll see them again.

It has been wonderful to see such heartfelt recognition of the volunteers of the SES and rural fire service. Tributes in the paper, a concert at Acer Arena, politicians and Princess Anne dropping by headquarters for a cup of tea, theses are all appropriate responses. But it is completely inappropriate that this is all we do. It's the same scene every couple of years, and then we go right back to taking them for granted. 

Why does so much of the responsibility for battling these fires and their aftermath fall to volunteers anyway?

I've been thinking about an old friend who I haven't seen in years quite a lot lately. I knew Effie was a good sort from the first time I met her because she volunteered for the SES. 

She rang me to apologise once for not making it to a party I'd hosted. She'd attended to an emergency instead. Her excuse:

 "Ever since the first time I saw the body of a child who had been lost in a fire, I've never been able to say no to a call-out. It's very rewarding, but totally draining, it's taken over a huge chunk of my life".

So, that's the trick to cost saving, traumatise the volunteers so much they keep coming back.  The best way to express our gratitude to volunteer services would be to ease some of their burden by not relying on them so heavily. 

The funding of our armed services should focus more on providing the essential infrastructure and staffing required in case of natural disasters. Volunteer emergency workers should be encouraged and honoured for playing a supporting role in our national defence, not left to pick up the considerable slack.

I heard a report on the radio that there was only one "Elvis" (Air-Crane Firefighting Helitanker) available on the weekend of 7 February, is that true? How can that be true?

Bushfires are an inevitability of Australian life; we should have been better prepared for a national response.  

You can donate to the Red Cross Australia Victorian Bushfire Appeal at:

https://www.redcross.org.au/Donations/onlineDonations.asp

  

SHARE WITH:

0 Comments

  1. Douglascomms

    February 24, 2009 at 12:53 am

    Splashing cash on Elvis – a great idea!

    And here I was thinking I was about to read a blog about Elvis fans… well I guess I did. At the core of it, the Government's cash splash is really a boost to small businesses, the photo studio is a small business, as is the car shop, as are the clothes shops, and electronics shops and all the other mini and small businesses where people are most likely to spend their bonus. 

    What the government's doing is attempting to keep small business ticking over to avoid a big rise in unemployment, and given the state of the global economy, it's unlikely at this stage to cause too much inflation, but in most circumstances your concerns are valid. 

    Note that at the same time as the government is stimulating small businesses by giving low to mid income earners a quick cash injection, it is also investing in more infrastructure, money aimed at large companies and their ability to employ people pouring concrete, and drafting bridges and digging long furrows to lay cable. the added bonus of investing in social and physical infrastructure is that it leads to increased productivity, enabling us all to do less and achieve more. 

    The challenge the government faces is that the previous government failed Economics 101, and mistook (or misrepresented) a property boom, and minerals boom for economic growth, failed comprehensively to invest in social of physical infrastructure and as a result productivity stagnated, and economic growth during the period was entirely based on a rise in external demand (something over which we have no control), and speculation. It's a really dumb way to run an economy and it's unlikely we'll be able to avoid a recession as a result of a decade of short sighted greedy policies. It should have been possible for use to build the Elvis helicopters here, have enough for our own needs and export them around the world, but because of the impovrished state of research and development, we need need to rely on imports.

    And I'm not even going to touch on the contributions the previous governemnt made to the greenhouse effect by destroying Australia's nascent alternative power industry.  

    Contributing part of the cash splash to buying another couple of Elvis is a good plan, but let's also think about the long term ramifications of voting in short sighted leaders. 

    JV Douglas –

  2. JEQP

    February 24, 2009 at 4:35 am

    Steady on, JV… First off,
    Steady on, JV… First off, I agree that the Howard government could have and should have done a lot more to support emerging industries with new technologies. However, I don't think spending on infrastructure would have done anything to alleviate the current financial situation. Say what you like about the Howard government (and I know you were just waiting for my permission) at least it ran a surplus during the boom years, which allows Rudd the leeway to inject cash and up investment. It could be a lot worse…

  3. sally.rose

    February 24, 2009 at 7:32 am

    Money spent could be bigger than the sum of its parts

    Hi JV, thanks for your thoughts, although I'd like to just clear up that any of my criticisms of the Rudd government should not be misinterprated as pining for the Howard years, but the honeymoon is over. 

    As a an ex (read failed !) small business operator myself I have a lot of empathy for the idea of initiatives that suppot SME's – but I don't think the one -off payments are effective. Many people will use it on something they were going to buy anyway (I know, I know, by rights that means there will still be more money to spend elsewhere), but the trickle down effect is likely to be so diminished that the repercussions are barely felt by SMEs. So much of the money spent will flow back to multinationals. 

    At best we'll see a big weekend for retailers and then nothing. Probably even a dip.

    I suppose I'm just a big believer in public spending and I know there's limited funds so I want to see them spent carefully. 

    You know the saying, give a man a loaf of bread and he'll eat for a day, give him wheat seeds and he'll feed himself (or something like that), we'll Im just worried that we're supporting the 1st world version; give a man a thousand bucks and he'll stay home playing with his new play station for a year.

    Hi JEQP, and thanks for your comment too.

    Gotta say though, I don't think a surpluses are the be all and end all.

    If the nation needs infrastructure, then it's often appropriate for the Treasury to go into debt to achieve it. As long as it's spent on productive measures.  

    It's really no different to taking out a small business loan for a car.  If your business is furniture removals it makes sense to spend $40 000 on a small truck. If your business is clothing retail you may want and feel you deserve a nice car but you'd be better off catching the bus than going into debt for a trapping of success that won't add anything to your venture's profitability.

    Overall, the other point I really wanted to make in my blog is that our defence forces are not being fully exploited for the public benefit. Increasing the peaceful work of the armed services would possibly also be good for recruitment and  would definitely be good for our neighbourly relations.

    When Fiji was flooding I'd like to have seen our National Services have the capacity to have offered more help.

  4. MikeM

    February 24, 2009 at 10:29 am

    Elvis is a high price performer

    I heard a report on the radio that there was only one "Elvis" (Air-Crane Firefighting Helitanker) available on the weekend of 7 February, is that true? How can that be true?

    Bushfires are an inevitability of Australian life; we should have been better prepared for a national response.  

    The Erickson (variously spelled) air crane costs $2.5 million to hire for a season and $12,000/hour to operate. The Fire Service has to compare this with what they can achieve with more fixed-wing aircraft and with more equipment on the ground.

    The real issue with fierce bush fires like this one and others in the past is build-up of fuel load. The Royal Commission is sure to find, as every previous one did, that sustained backburning is the proven way, proven in fact by indigenous people for 12,000 years, to maintain bush fires at a non-threatening level. And like every previous Royal Commission, the recommendations on this will be ignored.

    MikeM avoids living in the bush.

  5. foggy

    February 24, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    useful suggestion
    one has to give credit to namesake it got my attention like a head turner. King Elvis mentioned in Australia! whats up? but when i read your blog i was not a bit dissappoint… you have focussed on a very important issue-Volunteers.Kudos.heartfelt appreciation.then another important matter-the occurrence of inevitable geographical natural phenomenon and being ready for them and i simply loved the term-splash cash!all your suggestions are very useful.i am positive the volunteers do not have the time to write their own experience.think someone might interview them across the country and let us read about their soul satisfying jobs!

  6. sally.rose

    February 24, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Hi Mike

    Mike – You're absolutely on the money about the need to learn from past Royal Commissions and well managed back burning.

    I confess, I didn't do a full cost analysis before writing my blog on whether money would be better spent on  "Ëlvis" or what you suggest as more appropriate technology. But the point remains that our governmental response to disasters (natural or otherwise) are currently under staffed and under resourced.

    What our over-reliance on the SES and rural fire services in these bushfires demonstrates to me is that for all the talk and spending on "the war on terror" if there ever was terrorist attack in Australia we'd be depending on these volunteers to respond.

  7. sally.rose

    February 24, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Glad you enjoyed it Foggy

    Glad you enjoyed it Foggy, and I'll have to see if we can find someone to blog about the other Elvis!

  8. alison gordon

    February 25, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    the nature of emergencies will mean extra hands
    Sally, though I take your point on the lack of investment in emergency services, I think in any kind of emergency of this scale, you will find existing resources stretched and over-burdened. The very nature of volunteering offers help and hope in times of great crisis, when what we have in place simply won't do the job. I agree that we could be better prepared in some ways, but in lots of cases, volunteers who work with the SES and rural bushfire brigades help out because they are passionate, dedicated people who want to be called upon in times of need, they don't want extra recognition for it.

    The sad reality is that in any sector, we never seem to have enough to cope in times of intense demand. The growing list of charities shows there just isn't enough money and labour to go around.

    As an aside comment, I also agree that the "bonus" from the government will do very little if not spent wisely. Most of us who live an average life know $900 is not to be sneezed at, but at the same time, won't go that far. We would have been far better to inject the total sum of this money into public infrastructure – and many people I have spoken with feel the same.

    As for JEQP's comment – agreed, one has to wonder where Rudd would be without the surplus he was left to spend.

  9. MikeM

    February 26, 2009 at 11:48 am

    Money can destroy commitment of volunteers

    But the point remains that our governmental response to disasters (natural or otherwise) are currently under staffed and under resourced.

    There is a difficult problem here, which was highlighted at a conference in August 2007, hosted by the Australian Government Productivity Commission: there is a fundamental gap between the volutary Bush Fire Service and one funded by the government, and it is not easy to close. Bruno S Frey explains:

    Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic change in how motivation is seen to affect behaviour. Based on results originally found in experimental social psychology, an effect of a price change on behaviour has been identified, which predicts an exactly opposite effect on behaviour to that predicted by the classical price effect. In particular, a price increase is predicted to decrease, rather than increase, the supply of work offered. This is a remarkable result; it goes much beyond the many ‘behavioural anomalies' that have been identified in other parts of what today constitutes ‘psychology and economics' (sometimes also called ‘behavioural economics. […]

    intrinsic motivation, which, under identifiable conditions leads to dramatically different behavioural responses to price changes.

    The crowding-out effect may be illustrated by two examples:

    • A boy on good terms with his parents willingly mows the lawn of the family home. His father then offers to pay him money each time he cuts the lawn. The crowding-out effect suggests that the boy will lose his intrinsic motivation to cut the lawn (he may go on doing so, but now he does it because he is paid). Furthermore, ‘motivational transfer' effects mean that he will not be prepared to do any type of housework for free.
    • You have been invited to your friend's home for dinner, and he has prepared a wonderful meal. Before you leave, you take out your purse and give your friend an appropriate sum of money.

    Probably nobody in his right mind would behave in this way, because virtually everyone knows that this would be the end of the friendship. By paying, the relationship based on benevolence is fundamentally transformed; if it survives at all, it becomes a commercial one. Yet there is one person who would not hesitate to pay his friend for dinner: classical homo economicus would do so, following the price effect – and ends up without friends, to his own chagrin.

    The takeaway message: if you start pouring money into the volunteer fire service and do it the wrong way, you will remove the incentive for the volunteers to participate. Perhaps in the long run that could be the way to go: to establish a large and expensive professional bush fire service. But policymakers need to ensure that they don't fall between two stools: supplying insufficient funds for a comprehensive professional service while destroying the motivation of volunteers.

    MikeM has no lawn to cut.

  10. sally.rose

    February 26, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Interesting point about the

    Interesting point about the dimiinishing interest of voolunteers in better funder organisations. However, the suggestion was to increase the disaster response capabilities of the national defence forces. There'd still be an incentive for the rural volunteeers to be on hand for their remote locations.