Sue ’em!

Australia is coping with widespread disasters – mainly floods at present. Previously, it was the the devastation caused by bush fires. The cost of the damage to houses and household property is inevitably borne by the owners as they are seen as responsible for building in areas that are at risk of flooding or surrounded by flammable vegetation. There are houses close to the coast that are affected by subsidence and, because of global warming, liable to disappear at the next high tide.

But hang on, who is actually responsible? Before houses and businesses are constructed they need approval from local authorities, including where they will be situated. Using the floods as an example, how and why did the owners get permission to build on a flood plain – the area next to a river which is known to have flooded in the past? We have a controlled society, with particular authorities responsible for various areas of public activity. Having handed these responsibilities to governments, surely we should be able hold them to account if they make mistakes? Why should an owner have to face the financial burden of replacing possessions ruined by flood water, perhaps even rebuilding the house, when official approval was given to build on land next to a river which was known to have flooded previously?

There are many other examples where authorities take on the responsibility to control aspects of social behaviour, but claim to be not liable if they make a mistake. The recent robo-debt fiasco is a classic example, where many people were automatically billed for large amounts of debt which they had not incurred. Yes the money is eventually being refunded, but will there be any compensation for the emotional stress involved? Authority to control aspects of human behaviour should always be accompanied by the legal responsibility to make amends when mistakes are made.

The recent hacking of two large public companies, putting the personal data of many members of the public at risk of blackmail, is a further example of taking control without accepting full responsibility for security. No authority without liability.