My dear lucas, I hardly think that the area affected has an influence on the response of individuals to losing their homes and all their belongings.
You seem to be confusing human behaviour with the size of the devastation. What matters here is what people have lost, ie their homes belongings, access to food and water and medicine.
In tracy and in katrina a large number of individuals lost these things. To be sure, the authorities in Australia ( a welfare state by your definition) were much quicker to rectify these matters and perhaps the logistical problem may have been less (I don't concede that by the way because Darwin is a very long way away from other major centers unlike New Orleans etc which are quite close to other unaffected US cities). However you seem to be saying now that IF they hadn't been so prompt, Australians would have acted just as those in the US did ie looting, shooting and killing BECAUSE of the welfare state. Surely you can see that you have no evidence for this statement....
The poor residents of New Olreans and other affected cities acted as they did out of a combination of despair, poverty, availability of guns and the fact that they were let down by all of the relevant administrations which could reasonably be expected to have been prepared for the emergency.
Again, I challenge you to show how the welfare state as you put it has anything to do with it....
It better be good because I'm tired of playing this game...
