Commonwealth, state and territory climate change policies
9.1
The terms of reference for this inquiry direct the committee to examine the
adequacy of current state and Commonwealth policies for assessing, planning and
implementing adaptation plans and improving the resilience of infrastructure.
9.2
This report has already discussed various plans and programs developed
by governments, such as coastal planning strategies that require
decision-makers to take into account sea level rise benchmarks. Programs
developed in response to specific threats or challenges, such as the Victorian
Government's Powerline Bushfire Safety Program for upgrading electricity
infrastructure, have also been noted.
9.3
This chapter builds on these examples of government actions in
particular sectors, or in response to particular types of threats, by examining
the overall approach that the Australian, state and territory governments have
taken to managing the climate risks affecting houses, buildings and
infrastructure.
Overview of government plans and policies
9.4
Governments across Australia have developed and updated strategies,
plans and measures to guide climate change mitigation and adaptation over many
years. Some of these are multi-jurisdictional, a key example being the National
Climate Change Adaptation Framework adopted by the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) in 2007. That Framework:
...established priorities for action and a significant evidence
base, national climate change science and adaptation research capacity and
institutions, and a wide range of resilience-building initiatives. The
Framework continues to anchor and guide resilience action by Australian
governments.[1]
9.5
Submissions received during this inquiry provided numerous examples of Australian,
state and territory government strategies, plans and programs relating to
climate change. Some of these measures were discussed in detail. This section
does not provide a comprehensive overview of these documents and programs;
however, those that are particularly significant or relevant when considering
the evidence received during this inquiry are outlined below.
Australian Government policies and
programs
9.6
The Australian Government's approach to addressing climate change is
influenced by its international commitments to reduce emissions. In particular,
as a party to the Paris Agreement, in August 2015 the Australian Government
committed to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.[2]
9.7
Following its Paris Agreement commitments, in December 2015, the
Government released a National Climate Resilience and Adaptation
Strategy. The Strategy 'affirms a set of principles to guide effective
adaptation practice and resilience building, looks at leading practice
nationally, and considers areas for future review, consultation and action'.[3]
9.8
Across the Australian Government, specific measures relating to climate
change include the following:
- Emissions Reduction Fund—this is a voluntary scheme that provides
incentives for Australian farmers and landholders to adopt new practises and
technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Fund, participants
can earn Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) for emissions reduction. ACCUs 'can
be sold to generate income, either to the government through a carbon abatement
contract, or in the secondary market'.[4] A safeguard mechanism places limits (baselines) on the emissions of
facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of emissions a year.[5]
- Various measures relating to energy generation and usage,
including the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation,
the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the National Energy Productivity Plan, the
National Energy Guarantee and the Solar Communities program (these are
discussed in Chapter 7).
- The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2011, reviewed
2015) and the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience, through
which the Australian Government supports states and territories to invest in
priority disaster resilience projects.
- The Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy and the
accompanying Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy Plan, which encourage
critical infrastructure owners and operators to better manage risks to the continuity
of their operations, including climate change.[6]
9.9
In addition to these programs, various government agencies undertake
work relating to climate change as part of their broader responsibilities. For
example, projects undertaken by CSIRO to assist government decision-makers were
noted in Chapter 4.
9.10
The Australian Government has also supported other research in climate
change adaptation, such as the National Climate Change Adaptation Research
Facility (NCCARF) at Griffith University (the NCCARF is discussed in Chapter 3).
9.11
The joint submission from multiple Australian Government departments and
agencies provides further detail regarding policies, measures and initiatives
relating to climate change in place at the Commonwealth level of government. Examples
include:
- providing leadership in emergency management matters through the
Australia–New Zealand Emergency Management Committee (a committee of the COAG Crime
and Community Safety Council);
- coordinating Australia's implementation of the Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, which is an agreement reached by United
Nations Member States in 2015 that 'emphasises management of disaster risk as
opposed to focusing solely on disaster response or recovery';
- supporting the development of hazard information capabilities,
such as the next generation National Fire Danger Rating System; and
- assisting states and territories to manage and deliver public
safety communications systems.[7]
9.12
Finally, the Australian Government's cities policy overseen by the Minister for
Urban Infrastructure and Cities is also relevant.[8] Of particular note are the City Deals being negotiated by the Australian
Government. One of the areas of focus for City Deals is 'liveability and
sustainability', which among other things covers local responses to climate
change.[9] For example, in the Launceston City Deal, the Northern Suburbs Revitalisation
Plan addresses the need to ensure resilience to the effects of climate change.[10]
State government policies
9.13
As outlined above, this section does not provide a comprehensive
overview of climate change-related policies and measures. Policies regarding
specific matters, such as coastal planning and renewable energy, have been
discussed in previous chapters. However, those policies are underpinned by overarching
climate change legislation and strategies. Examples of key strategies and
policies are at Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Examples of state
government legislation and policies
Jurisdiction |
Legislation/policy
document |
New South Wales |
NSW Climate Change
Policy Framework |
Victoria |
Climate
Change Act 2017 (Vic)
Victoria's Climate
Change Framework |
Queensland |
Queensland
Climate Adaptation Strategy 2017–2030 (2017)
Queensland Climate
Transition Strategy (2017) |
South Australia |
Towards a resilient
state: the South Australian Government's Climate Change Adaptation Action
Plan*
South Australia's Climate Change
Strategy 2015–2050 – Towards a low carbon economy* |
Western Australia |
Adapting
to our changing climate |
Tasmania |
Climate Action 21:
Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan 2017–2021 |
Australian Capital
Territory |
Climate
Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act 2010 (ACT)
Climate
Change Strategy and Action Plan
Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy |
Northern Territory |
Although a strategy is
not in place, the Government is developing a 'whole-of-government framework
to respond to climate change, taking into consideration the environmental,
economic, social and health implications'.[11] |
* The March 2018 South
Australian election triggered a change in government which may affect the
status of these strategies.
9.14
These strategies outline various targets and objectives regarding the
implications of climate change. Key focuses of these documents are commitments
or aspirational commitments to reduce emissions, such as the Victoria's
legislated target of net zero emissions by 2050[12] and the Queensland Government's target of net zero emissions by 2050 and an
interim target of reducing emissions by at least 30 per cent below 2005
levels by 2030.[13]
9.15
On the implications for infrastructure specifically, the following
sample of state government policies provide insight into the approaches being
taken.
9.16
The Victorian Government's Climate Change Framework highlights
areas of particular concern regarding infrastructure. Overall, the Framework is
a strategy to 'maximise the opportunities while minimising the adverse impacts
of climate change for our state'. The Framework includes the objectives of building
the resilience of Victoria's 'infrastructure, built environment and communities
through effective adaptation and disaster preparedness action'. Among other
matters, the Framework includes specific measures for the resilience of
buildings, transport networks and energy infrastructure.[14]
9.17
The climate change strategy issued by the Western Australian Government
in 2012, Adapting to our changing climate, also has a significant focus
on infrastructure.[15] The strategy highlights the need to support 'infrastructure risk assessment and
adaptation planning'. It also focuses on integrating climate change
considerations into a range of government decisions, including development
assessments; land-use and infrastructure planning; infrastructure procurement;
and maintenance programs. The strategy also notes the need to accelerate
infrastructure development in other areas, such as additional water supply
sources.[16]
9.18
In Queensland, changes to planning laws enacted by the Planning Act
2016 (Qld) and the State Planning Policy (2017) required local governments
to 'respond to climate change in their planning instruments'. In addition, the
state government is 'required to consider and respond to climate change in the
preparation of a Coastal Management Strategy under the Coastal Protection
and Management Plan 1991'.[17]
Perspectives on government strategies and policies on adaptation
9.19
As discussed in Chapter 2, in commenting on the adequacy of current
Commonwealth policies regarding climate change, many stakeholders emphasised
the need for a strong mitigation response. As mitigation has already been
addressed in this report, this section will focus on adaptation strategies,
particularly those specifically targeting the resilience of buildings and infrastructure.
9.20
The committee received evidence indicating how Commonwealth and state
governments are working together to inform strategies for climate change
adaptation. For example, the Tasmanian Government highlighted how work
undertaken by CSIRO assisted it to develop its climate change strategy by
informing sea level rise projections and planning allowances.[18]
9.21
Some issues that climate change could exacerbate are already the focus
of established government programs. For example, Lake Macquarie City Council
noted that procedures for floodplain risk management and bushfire are
'relatively mature' in New South Wales.[19] The Tasmanian Government also explained the initiatives it has undertaken to
manage bushfire risk, including a fuel reduction program and various programs
to educate communities at risk from bushfire about planning strategies.[20]
9.22
Stakeholders also expressed positive opinions about approaches being
taken by certain state governments. Mr Dwayne Honor, the Queensland Director of
Floodplain Management Australia (FMA), commented that the Queensland
Government's decision to require planning policies to account for a sea level
rise of 0.8 metres for the entire coast 'has been a positive move' that has
resulted in consistent planning scheme controls.[21] Ms Kirsty Kelly from the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC)
commented that the Australian Capital Territory Government is 'quite strong in
the resilience space'.[22]
9.23
However, the committee received a significant amount of evidence questioning
the effectiveness of current approaches. For example, key stakeholders
criticised the Australian Government's 2015 National Climate Resilience and
Adaptation Strategy. The Local Government Association of Queensland argued that,
with the exception of the CoastAdapt tool, the Strategy 'has not been
adequately informed by the needs of the 'frontline' stakeholders, particularly
local governments'.[23] When asked whether the Climate Council had a view on the Strategy, Professor Lesley
Hughes noted that he was 'not terribly familiar' with the Strategy and agreed
with the proposition that this indicates the Strategy is not as effective as it
could be.[24]
9.24
From the perspective of local governments in Western Australia, the
representative body for local governments in that state submitted:
There is little in the way of State and Commonwealth plans or
resources directed to adaptation, despite the fact that Local Governments are
currently undertaking adaptation action, and needing to make plans for future
adaptation action. There is a particularly significant policy vacuum within the
Western Australian Government, with negligible demonstrated and coordinated
leadership and long-term planning across all areas. For example, the WA
Government Climate Change Strategy which was released in October 2012 is
inadequate and in need of an update and review.[25]
9.25
A particular concern is that the strategy documents developed at all
levels of government have not resulted in the necessary 'on the ground'
responses. Regional Development Australia – South West (RDA South West) submitted:
The paradox is the considerable volume of people working on
rising sea‑level issues have produced so little effective coastal
management response.
In Western Australia there are a number of policy notes
and/or draft versions but little coordination between agencies. This is not
uncommon. Taking into account academia, CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, the
Australian Oceanographic Data Centre, Australian Hydrographic Service, Bureau
of Meteorology, Institute of Marine Science, Department of Environment, and State
bodies plus a multitude of international organisations and experts, there is a
lack of a widely recognised co‑ordination and response body.[26]
9.26
Similarly, Green Cross Australia argued that 'it is now well-recognized
that...despite a large number of adaptation plans and planning guidelines being
written by governments, the private sector and communities, there is a lack of
on‑the‑ground adaptation occurring'. Green Cross Australia
considers that this is due to 'the political risk of undertaking adaptation actions,
difficulties in securing adaptation funding, and perverse incentives in the
property development sector'. Green Cross Australia concluded that there is 'a
clear role for the Australian Government to assist in removing some of these
barriers'.[27]
9.27
The need for effective sector-based strategies was also noted. The Queensland
Tourism Industry Council (QTIC) argued that 'there is a gap in existing plans,
strategies and framework' relating to the consideration of climate change for
the long‑term future of the tourism industry. The QTIC called for the
development of sector-based climate change mitigation and adaptation sector
plans to be expedited and for climate change mitigation and adaptation plans to
be integrated into other existing strategies.[28]
9.28
Finally, it was argued that certain Australian Government programs
regarding emissions reduction are not well suited to the building sector. Green
Building Council Australia argued that, regarding the Emissions Reduction Fund,
'several barriers have prevented the buildings sector—where many low-cost
opportunities exist—from accessing the scheme'. Among others, these barriers
include a minimum bid size of 2000 tonnes C02-e average abatement per annum; the
Green Building Council explained that this bid size 'is difficult to achieve
for a single building, except for very large, energy-hungry facilities'.[29]
Calls for greater government leadership and coordination of policies
9.29
A key role several submitters envisaged for the Australian Government is
the coordination of efforts to develop a robust, best practice and nationally
consistent response to climate change.
9.30
It was argued that, without greater leadership and actions to further
climate change adaptation and resilience from the Australian Government, it
will be more difficult for the approaches taken by other governments and
stakeholders to succeed. The Law Institute of Victoria argued that long-term
emissions reduction targets and other measures pursued by state governments,
such as the Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic), will be 'undermined without a
nation-wide policy commitment to combatting climate change'.[30] A representative from the Law Institute of Victoria argued that actions
taken by state governments 'lack the unifying clarity the federal government
can create and which we say is required for a global issue such as climate
change'.[31]
9.31
Local governments also called on the Australian and state governments to
develop policies that support their adaptation efforts. The City of Melbourne
submitted that the implementation of its Energy, Water and Waste Efficiency
local planning policy 'could be made easier by the introduction of State and
Federal policy'.[32]
9.32
Ms Emma Herd, Chief Executive Officer, Investor Group on Climate Change
(IGCC), argued that a national approach to climate change adaptation would help
achieve beneficial outcomes. Ms Herd observed that 'generally in Australia we
reduce the economic costs of the response if we're more or less doing the same
thing across all states and areas'. Ms Herd envisaged that a national approach
to adaptation would involve all levels of government and address the following
matters:
...who was responsible for what; how we get a nationally
consistent response to climate change across all jurisdictions; how we bring in
private sector participation, whether it's in terms of planning or construction
or, in our case, investment into solutions; how we get all parts of the economy
working together and pulling in the same direction with a common understanding
of what the impacts are likely to be and what some of the available solutions
actually are.[33]
9.33
Ms Herd added that a national approach to climate change does not
require 'over-planning or over-management', rather the objective should be more
effectively articulating 'levels of responsibility and opportunities for
public-private partnership' and ensuring scientific knowledge regarding climate
projects is used to achieve 'a more consistent approach to climate change
adaptation management'.[34] Ms Herd suggested that a multijurisdictional reference group could be formed to
harmonise climate change policies, forecast scenarios and risk assessment
models across different jurisdictions.[35]
9.34
Professor Lesley Hughes from the Climate Council of Australia and Ms Kirsty
Kelly from the ASBEC supported the idea of developing a national plan, and the
ASBEC also supported the IGCC's suggestion of forming a multijurisdictional
reference group to harmonise climate change policies. Notwithstanding this
overall support, they emphasised that a national plan should recognise the need
to account for developments that are relevant at a state and territory level,
such as different rates of sea level rise in different locations. A national
plan should also not displace grassroots actions.[36]
9.35
Similarly, Mr Andrew Petersen, Chief Executive Officer, Sustainable
Business Australia, argued that it is 'critical' that greater national
coordination of responses to climate risks takes place, although he added that
this would not have to be 'a top-down approach, because there is a lot of
excellent work that goes on amongst most states and territories at the moment'.[37]
9.36
The QTIC called for a coordinated approach to climate change mitigation
and adaptation strategies across levels of government, although it added that
industry should also be involved. The QTIC reasoned that, from the perspective
of tourism sector, its infrastructure and assets 'cross multiple industries',
such as agriculture and transportation, requiring a 'united approach toward
mitigation and adaptation strategies' across all relevant sectors.[38]
9.37
Stakeholders also identified issues on which they consider governments
should provide explicit guidance and nationally consistent policies. For
example, Ms Megan Motto from Consult Australia called for the Australian
Government to provide the built environment sector with certainty about the
climate risks for which they should be designing. Ms Motto exampled that the
sector wants:
...leadership, particularly from government saying: 'We expect
the industry to design to X. Above that, we're not going to hold you
responsible because you didn't foresee an unknown future.' So I think that the
government needs to show a little bit of ownership in particular as a great
owner and deliverer of assets in the Australian jurisdiction. I think the
government needs to take a little bit of ownership of where that line in the
sand would be to give industry the certainty it needs to perform to a standard.[39]
9.38
Local governments also called on the Australian Government to work with both
them and the state governments to prepare and respond to coastal risks.
The Australian Coastal Councils Association (ACCA) questioned the merits
of the Australian Government having a limited role in these matters to date.
Although it acknowledged the argument that constitutional arrangements mean
that the states have primary responsibility for the protection of life,
property and the environment, the ACCA argued that 'the national scale of the
risk' associated with climate change requires 'a coordinated national
approach to managing climate hazards in the coastal zone'. The ACCA added:
This would involve a commitment by the three tiers of
government to work collaboratively to ensure the sustainability of the coastal
environment and coastal communities. The proposed integrated approach would
require each tier of government to play its role in safeguarding the coast from
the impact of coastal hazards.
Coastal councils are at the forefront of responding to key
issues in the coastal zone, such as climate risks, but are ill-equipped to
respond appropriately to the complex and difficult set of challenges involved.
These include lack of funding for effective adaptation measures and lack of
appropriate policy guidance in many jurisdictions. There is a clear need for
enhanced coordination of planning and management of the coastal zone at a
local, regional, state and Commonwealth level as well as a greater need for
cross-jurisdictional coordination between all levels of government in relation
to coastal planning and management.[40]
9.39
RDA South West suggested that the objective of increased national
coordination to advance coastal management responses could be achieved through
the creation of a 'nationally consistent framework' with 'a respected apex
organisation...to co-ordinate all effort and pull together stakeholders'.
RDA South West acknowledged that a nationally coordinated approach could
potentially reduce the opportunities for flexible and collaborative local responses;
however, it is of the view that moving to a single agency approach with
'planning certainty' is required.[41]
9.40
Finally, another area where governments could demonstrate commitment to
improving the resilience of buildings to climate change risk is by leading by
example through their own property requirements. Green Building Council
Australia explained that a decision by the Victorian Government to require all
of its new office space to be Green Star-certified is a key example of
government leadership on improving building standards. The Green Building
Council provided the following evidence regarding how this decision resulted in
wider benefits:
At the time, Green Star certification was still relatively
new and only a small portion of industry was familiar with it. However, to supply
government demand for high quality Green Star office space, industry rapidly
upskilled and adopted Green Star and today 4 and 5 Star Green Star
certification is usually achieved on a cost-neutral basis.[42]
9.41
The Green Building Council Australia reasoned that 'with increasing
commitments by all governments to reach net zero emissions targets by 2050, it
is important that parallel commitments are reflected in government procurement
policy'. Accordingly, it argued that a Green Star rating for any government building
or office fit-out should be a pre-condition for procurement.[43]
Calls for legislative reform and changes to institutional arrangements
9.42
The Commonwealth's responsibilities regarding the environment focus on the
protection of matters of national environmental significance, whereas the
states and territories have responsibility for matters of state and local
significance. This framework means that there can be overlap between
levels of government; for example, projects can be subject to both Commonwealth
and state frameworks and approval processes. However, responsibilities can be
devolved; for example, bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and
states accredit state assessment processes for assessing certain actions that
are covered by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act). In addition, state governments impose requirements on
local governments regarding environmental matters, such as considering environmental
considerations in decision-making processes.
Concerns raised in evidence
9.43
Key stakeholders are critical of the current legislative framework regarding
climate change and environment protection, as well as how this framework has
developed over time. The Chair of the Law Institute of Victoria's Environmental
Issues Committee, Mr Hubert Algie, argued that 'the incremental development of
Australia's environmental law and policy has generally resulted in an extremely
complex, fragmented and uncoordinated legal and regulatory system'. Mr Algie added
that:
The size, scale and impenetrable complexity of environmental
legislation, regulation, codes and policies makes real responses to climate
change or leadership difficult. The numerous agreements between Commonwealth
and states, overlaid by international treaties, complicates matters further.[44]
9.44
Witnesses representing the Law Institute argued that the EPBC Act is
particularly deficient for addressing climate change. Mr Algie stated:
The EPBC Act is complex, and reforms to it over a number of
years have made it more complex. It actively divested the federal government of
its responsibilities. It's moved them further away from the federal government
and further away from federal government leadership on environmental issues.
The starting point for climate change reform should be reviewing the EPBC Act...The
reality is the EPBC Act was drafted in a time that didn't fully scope the
impacts and the speed at which our climate changed. The act itself does not
make reference to climate change other than to international treaties on that
point. That is an oversight. The reality is the federal environmental
legislation ignores those impacts.[45]
9.45
The Law Institute argued that the complexity of the current framework 'should
be remedied as part of wholescale environmental law reform at a federal level'.[46] Although the Law Institute did not endorse any particular reform proposals, it
highlighted a suite of recommendations developed by the Australian Panel of
Experts on Environmental Law (APEEL)[47] for changes to Australia's environmental law framework. The recommendations
were outlined in an APEEL paper tabled by the Law Institute.[48]
9.46
Areas for reform were also identified beyond environmental law. It was
argued that existing and future Commonwealth and state legislation and policies
on climate change should be integrated into the management of state
infrastructure, with a precautionary approach taken 'especially where there is
high risk associated, such as with the National Electricity Market'.[49]
9.47
In addition, it was noted that there is no formal mechanism for
collaboration between local, state and federal government on climate change adaptation
and mitigation. The absence of a ministerial-level Council relating to climate
change within the COAG framework was highlighted.[50]
Suggestions for change
9.48
Submitters proposed various changes to institutional arrangements to
assist with the coordination of climate change issues across government and to improve
how climate change issues are taken into account in decision-making. For example,
representatives of Victorian local governments who participated in the
Melbourne public hearing indicated support for the Australian Government to
establish an independent climate change authority on a permanent basis.[51]
9.49
One of the specific suggestions is the creation of a National Panel on
Climate Change modelled on the 'tried and trusted methodology' of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA),
which advocated for this change, argued that a national panel on climate change
would provide Australia with 'one, overarching, stable organisation that can
provide the up-to-date science, technology and assessment processes to assist
Government and stakeholders'.[52]
9.50
In particular, the DEA argued that a national panel on climate change would
ensure that scientific data relating to climate change would be 'assembled and
interpreted on an ongoing basis to the public and to institutions and
governments in a form that is easily understood'. The DEA argued that, to date,
'Australian governments have not understood the necessity for this'. The DEA
explained:
In the past 3 years decisive blows have been struck at the
existing structure of climate analysis and research in Australia with the
downsizing and re‑organisation of CSIRO and the demolition of NCCARF.
Existing research assessments, modest though they are, are distributed through
a range of institutions without coordination. The Australian Academy of Science
has reported on the inadequacy of climate change research and modelling
resulting from CSIRO cutbacks and it has supported re‑establishment of
staffing in CSIRO. DEA supports this, but measures need to be developed to
ensure that it is secure from political expediency so such expertise is always
available.[53]
9.51
Like the IPCC, the DEA suggested that an Australian panel on climate
change would 'still be intergovernmental' with the states and territories
involved.[54]
9.52
Another suggestion for changing institutional arrangements to enhance
how climate change issues are considered is the DEA's proposal for the creation
of a national Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The DEA argued that a
national EPA with legislated powers to act in all states would be 'the most
appropriate delivery system for climate change policy and related matters'. The
DEA commented that the case for a national EPA has been argued in many of its
publications, however, it provide the following brief overview of how a
national EPA could function by comparing it to the similarly named
Environmental Protection Authority in the United States:
Essentially the US EPA covers the regulation of air, water
quality and environmental requirements related to health and delivers policy on
environmental preventative health to the entire nation, for example, as with...[the
Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan under the] Clean Air Act. In Australia,
the intent would be similar, namely, the enactment and delivery of clean air
and water and the control of pollution etc, to all Australians, where-ever
their abode.[55]
9.53
The 57 recommendations for change to Australia's framework of
environmental laws developed by APEEL also contained suggestions for new
regulatory and oversight institutions. APEEL argued that these proposed
institutions 'replace and expand upon the functions currently exercised by the
Minister and Department for [the] Environment and Energy and other existing
Commonwealth statutory environmental authorities'. APEEL identified the
following three bodies that it proposed could be established:
- A Commonwealth Environment Commission—APEEL envisaged a high‑level
and independent institution similar to the Reserve Bank of Australia that
would:
- administer a proposed system of Commonwealth Strategic
Environmental Instruments (comprising national strategies, programs, standards
and protocols, and regional environmental plans);
- be responsible for 'a nationally coordinated system of
environmental data collection, monitoring, auditing and reporting';
- conduct 'environmental inquiries of a strategic nature'; and
-
provide advice to the Australian Government on environmental
matters.
- A Commonwealth EPA—among other things, the EPA would be
responsible for administering the Commonwealth's environmental assessment and
approval system, and for regulating activities undertaken by Commonwealth
authorities or on Commonwealth land.
- A Commonwealth Environmental Auditor—the Auditor would:
- monitor and report on the performance of Commonwealth entities in
the performance of their statutory environmental responsibilities, including
the Minister, the Commonwealth EPA, Department for the Environment and Energy
and other relevant Commonwealth bodies; and
-
make recommendations to the Commonwealth Environment Commission
on the need to develop new strategic environmental instruments.[56]
Building resilience and betterment of infrastructure assets
9.54
This section addresses evidence received regarding the need for greater
expenditure on pre-disaster resilience and the Commonwealth's role in funding
the recovery of infrastructure following natural disasters.
Background information on natural
disaster funding arrangements
9.55
The Australian Government's approach to recovery assistance is guided by
the intergovernmental Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements
(NDRRA). Under the NDRRA, the Australian Government provides financial
assistance to state and territory governments following a natural disaster or
terrorist act if a coordinated multi-agency response was required and state
expenditure exceeded a specified minimum threshold. State and territory
governments determine the individuals and communities in their jurisdictions
that will receive NDRRA assistance.[57]
9.56
In participating in the NDRRA, the Commonwealth recognises that natural
disasters or terrorist acts may result in large-scale expenditure by state
governments, and that the Commonwealth has a role to assist with this burden.
In doing so, the Commonwealth's assistance is intended to complement other state
government relief and recovery strategies (such as insurance and natural
disaster mitigation planning), and is 'not intended to fund every possible
relief and recovery assistance measure delivered by a state'.[58]
9.57
Two types of NDRRA assistance measures particularly relevant to this
inquiry are the assistance that can be provided for:
-
the restoration or replacement of an essential public asset;[59] and
- betterment of an essential public asset, which for the purposes
of the NDRRA is defined as the 'restoration or replacement of an essential
public asset to a more disaster-resilient standard than its pre-disaster
standard'.[60]
9.58
NDRRA funding for the betterment of an essential public asset may be provided
if, after reviewing a betterment proposal submitted by a state government, the
Commonwealth is satisfied with the cost-effectiveness of the proposal and that
the betterment project will 'mitigate the impact of likely or recurring natural
disasters of the same type'.[61]
9.59
The Australian Government funds up to 75 per cent of the NDRRA assistance
made available to individuals and communities.[62] For 2017–18, it is estimated that the Commonwealth will make cash payments of
$532.3 million as part of the NDRRA.[63]
9.60
The Commonwealth also provides funding to the states and territories to
enhance national disaster resilience. The Attorney-General's Department[64] provided the following information about the funding provided by the
Commonwealth for these efforts:
...through the National Partnership Agreement on Natural
Disaster Resilience, the Australian Government supports states and territories
to invest in priority disaster resilience projects. The current Agreement
provides $26.1 million in Commonwealth funding each year over the life of the
agreement, which is matched by the states and territories through funding or in
kind resources.[65]
9.61
Across governments, IAG noted that research completed by the Australian
Business Roundtable (ABR) in 2016 found that, between 2002–03 and 2010–11,
Australian governments spent more than $450 million per financial year
restoring essential public infrastructure assets following extreme weather
events. This equated to approximately 1.6 per cent of total public
infrastructure spending.[66]
9.62
The NDRRA was reviewed by the Productivity Commission (PC) in 2014. The
PC found that 'current government natural disaster funding arrangements are inefficient,
inequitable and unsustainable', The PC made the following observations about
how the NDRRA influences decision-making by state and local governments:
The NDRRA dilute the link between asset ownership, risk
ownership and funding. This creates a financial disincentive for state and
local governments to manage these risks (especially through land use planning)
and a further disincentive to invest in mitigation or insurance. State and
local governments generally must bear the full costs of these risk mitigators
themselves, whereas they only pay a portion of the cost of restoring an asset
damaged by a natural disaster under the NDRRA.[67]
9.63
To develop a framework that is 'more likely to be consistent with the
safety‑net policy objective of the funding arrangement', the PC argued
that Australian Government mitigation funding should be increased while
post-disaster support should be reduced. The PC noted that the current
cost-sharing rate of 75 per cent under the NDRRA is 'much higher than in other
service delivery areas that are principally the responsibility of states'. The
PC argued that 'a case has not been made for the Australian Government to have
a higher exposure to natural disaster fiscal risks than to other fiscal risks
borne by state governments'.[68]
9.64
Key recommendations made by the PC included that:
- Commonwealth mitigation funding to states should increase to $200
million a year (to be matched by the states); and
-
the threshold for Commonwealth assistance should be increased,[69] and the cost-sharing rate above this threshold reduced to 50 per cent.[70]
9.65
In its response to the PC's report, the Australian Government indicated
that it did not intend to pursue these recommendations after state and
territory governments raised 'significant concerns with any proposal to reduce
the Australian Government's contribution to recovery funding'.[71]
Calls for greater attention to betterment
and pre-disaster resilience
9.66
The approach taken to rebuilding efforts following natural disasters
attracted significant comment. A common theme in many submissions is that
government-funded reconstruction or rebuilding projects following natural
disasters often only fund work to return the infrastructure to its original
specifications, rather than increasing the resilience of the asset.
9.67
Specific examples were provided. The South East Councils Climate Change
Alliance advised that, following extreme rainfall events in March 2011 and May
and June 2012, over 200 landslides occurred in the Baw Baw Shire area. The
landslides resulting in road closures and loss of service, with some roads
affected multiple times. However, recovery assistance received from the state
government, which was supported by Commonwealth funding under the NDRRA, 'only
covered "replacement to the same standard" and delays in
reimbursements left council financially exposed'.[72]
9.68
The PC made similar observations about repeated repair projects in its
2014 report on natural disaster funding arrangements. The PC referred to
'Groundhog Day' projects where assets are rebuilt to the same standard on
multiple occasions, such as the following anecdote:
...a water intake plant in Queensland was damaged by floods in
2011. Soon after it was reconstructed to its pre-disaster state, it was damaged
again by flooding in 2013.[73]
9.69
Evidence received by the committee explained that it can be difficult
for governments to justify investing in more resilient buildings and
infrastructure. The Northern Territory Government submitted that private
infrastructure owners and operators should face sufficient incentives 'to
decide for themselves whether constructing and maintaining economic
infrastructure to a higher standard is in their economic interests'. However,
in relation to publicly-owned infrastructure that does not produce a direct
income, the Northern Territory Government submitted:
There is a risk that cash-constrained governments at all
levels limit their investment to what they can afford in the short-term, and in
doing so forgo the advantages of a longer economic life achievable if higher,
yet more expensive engineering and building standards were applied, in addition
to more intensive maintenance.[74]
9.70
Consult Australia acknowledged that the cost of upgrades 'can be
significant, especially following large-scale natural disasters'. However, it
reasoned that the opportunity cost of electing not to upgrade damaged assets
needs to be taken into account. Consult Australia argued that not investing in
improvements 'means that the rebuilt infrastructure may be just as
vulnerable...[which] in turn increases the risk that future natural disasters
will cause even greater damage, with escalating reconstruction costs and
disruption to the economy'.[75]
9.71
Similarly, IAG argued that by not improving the resilience of essential
public infrastructure assets following a natural disaster, 'individuals,
communities, businesses and governments are left more vulnerable to widespread
disruption and higher costs post disaster'. IAG noted that Australian governments
spent over $450 million per financial year between 2002–03 and 2010–11
restoring essential public infrastructure assets following extreme weather
events.[76]
9.72
The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) also favours
the betterment of assets 'to prevent a situation where, for example, valuable
infrastructure is washed away and then identically replaced every few years'.
WALGA argued that the projected increase in the frequency or intensity of many
types of extreme weather events means that the benefits from increasing the
resilience of assets are likely to be greater than has been the case.[77]
9.73
The PC found that betterment is rarely used under the NDRRA. The PC
explained that this is because, under the NDRRA, betterment:
...is subject to a lower reimbursement rate, a higher
administrative burden and lack of a budget allocation by the Australian
Government (which means that offsetting savings must be made elsewhere to fund
betterment).[78]
9.74
Betterment programs that have been undertaken include two Betterment Funds
jointly funded by the Australian and Queensland Governments in 2013 and 2015
under the NDRRA.[79]
9.75
In its submission, the Queensland Government noted that the Betterment Funds
address the problem of NDRRA funding generally only enabling damaged
infrastructure to be repaired to its pre-disaster standard (that is, governments
have to 'build back the same vulnerable infrastructure "like for
like" in the same vulnerable location'). The Queensland Government argued
that the Betterment Funds reflects international best practice. In particular,
the Queensland Government noted that many of the 295 betterment projects
undertaken have faced and withstood subsequent natural disasters and it is
estimated that reconstructions costs of approximately $104 million have
been saved as a result.[80]
9.76
The FMA suggested that the Queensland betterment funds could be used as
a model for a joint Commonwealth and state fund that could lead to 'more
resilient recovery and reconstruction options' that factor in future climate
change-related risks.[81]
9.77
More generally, it was noted that Commonwealth expenditure on
post-disaster recovery and relief far exceeds expenditure on pre-disaster
resilience. The FMA referred to a Deloitte Access Economics report which found
that there is a ratio of 10:1 of post-disaster expenditure by the Commonwealth
compared to pre-disaster resilience. The FMA highlighted this to support its
argument that greater government investment is required in pre-disaster
resilience; from the FMA's perspective, it is 'concerned about the insufficient
government investment in flood risk mitigation generally and the worsening
consequences that will be caused by climate change'. The FMA submitted:
There is Australian and international evidence that increased
investment in best practice flood risk management and mitigation measures would
reduce the budget impact of recovering from floods for all levels of
government. It would also reduce the economic and social cost of floods to
individuals and businesses and improve the ability of communities to recover.[82]
9.78
The approach taken in Australia was contrasted to that in other
countries with a high risk of natural hazards. On floods generally, Mr Grech
from the FMA commented that the ratio of pre-disaster mitigation and
post-disaster recovery in the Netherlands is essentially the reverse to
Australia: 'They spend 90 per cent on mitigation and 10 per cent on
post-disaster recovery'.[83]
9.79
The IGCC submitted that the Deloitte Access Economics analysis referred
to by the FMA also found that 'carefully targeted programs of resilience
investment in the order of $250 million/yr could see government spending reduce
by more than 50% by 2050'.[84]
9.80
Since this evidence was received, there has been a development regarding
the Australian Government's approach to these issues. In April 2018, the Minister
for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security announced the creation of a National Resilience
Taskforce to 'lead nation-wide reforms to reduce the impact and financial
burden of disasters on our communities and economy'. The Minister explained
that the taskforce, in consultation with the state and territory governments
and the finance and insurance sectors, would 'develop a five-year national
disaster mitigation framework to reduce the impact of disasters'.[85]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page