Tuesday, 2 August 2022

Bills

Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022

Statement of compatibility

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:47): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter Act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022.

In my opinion, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter Act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of Bill

The purpose of the Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022 is to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to recognise and respond to the climate impacts resulting from planning and for other purposes.

Human Rights Issues

1. Human rights protected by the Charter Act that are relevant to the Bill

The Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022 does not raise any human rights issues.

2. Consideration of reasonable limitations—section 7(2)

As the Planning and Environment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022 does not raise any human rights issues, it does not limit any human rights, and therefore it is not necessary to consider section 7(2) of the Charter Act.

Conclusion

I consider that the Planning and Environment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022 is compatible with the Charter Act because it does not raise any human rights issues.

CLIFFORD HAYES MLC

Legislative Council Member for Southern Metropolitan Region

Second reading

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:48): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to seek your support on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Wake Up to Climate Change) Bill 2022.

We call it the Wake Up to Climate Change Bill for a good reason. It is time that we did wake up to climate change as a Parliament.

President, I do not know whether you or other members saw a film called Don’t Look Up. It was not a particularly remarkable film, with Leonardo DiCaprio in it, but it was a film about scientists discovering that a comet was heading towards earth and that we did not have a lot of time to respond to it. Unfortunately the news was received with very little official attention and was actively denied by the government. We cannot put our heads in the sand any longer on climate change. We have noted that the results of the last election were very heavily influenced by public sentiment on climate change.

So the purpose of the amendment I seek today is to strengthen the Planning and Environment Act 1987 so that it relates to the more recent Climate Change Act 2017. These acts are currently seen to work in conflict with each other, as the planning act’s prescribed purpose is the use, development and protection of land in Victoria. It goes on to set out the processes and framework for planning provisions, but the act currently neglects to set the broad and much-needed objectives for how projects in planning should encompass consideration of climate change.

Whilst the government has argued in this house before that the planning act meets environmental objectives, all evidence points to the fact that it is clearly failing. It’s failing our native flora and fauna, our wetlands, our forests, our open spaces, our diverse ecosystems and our diminishing wildlife corridors, all of which is resulting in a mass species extinction.

If the recent state of the environment report, which came out a few weeks ago, isn’t a wake-up call to the government, then I really don’t know what is.

But the government’s heard this all before. The inquiry into ecosystem decline report 2021 showed that Victoria’s ecosystems are facing serious and rapid decline. Population growth and spread has put pressure on ecosystems, which has led to the degradation and loss of many native species and habitats. In addition, climate change brings about new challenges. The inquiry, which was the largest ever undertaken by the committee, received nearly 1000 substantive submissions, which illustrated the importance of this issue to the Victorian community.

The report found that climate change is already driving ecosystem decline across Victoria, with devastating effects for native floral and faunal species.

Six environment groups—including the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Victoria and Friends of the Earth—released a joint statement saying the findings made it abundantly clear the state needed to act to halt the decline of 400 plants and animals listed as critically endangered and the 2000 listed as threatened under state laws.

The Climate Change Act 2017, referred to in this bill, introduces a set of policy objectives, guiding principles and mandatory considerations to embed climate change into government policy formulation and decision-making. It ensures that any decision government makes ‘appropriately takes account of climate change if it is relevant’.

In a submission to the inquiry, DELWP acknowledges the challenges and threats to Victorian ecosystems and native species that had presented as a result of climate change. They said, ‘Many native species are at an increasing risk of extinction from a range of pressures, including the impacts of climate change’. The Victorian National Parks Association provided written evidence describing how the changing climate is driving ecosystem decline across the state.

In Victoria, much of the connectivity between ecosystems has been lost through land clearing and changed land uses. Stakeholders asserted throughout the inquiry that loss of connectivity between ecosystems challenges species’ ability to migrate to new, more suitable habitat as climate change makes their traditional range less suitable.

Belfast Coastal Reserve Action Group submitted that ‘67 per cent of Victoria’s trees, mangroves, shrubs, and other plants have been cleared since colonisation. Much of what’s left is in poor health’.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council and Anna Murphy, director and head of flora ecology at the Threatened Species Conservancy, said that the outlook for threatened native species, and I quote:

… will only worsen as Australia heads further into climate breakdown …

We are heading into catastrophic climate change. The scenarios are incredibly serious, and they will have massive ramifications on our native vegetation and also on our native wildlife, so we really need to be thinking about how we are going to manage our biodiversity into the future and our threatened species into the future. Because if we do not, we are going to see widespread extinction and we will have to live with that. That is something that we will pass to our future generations …

That is the end of the quote by those bodies.

Now, I guess the government response to this is that we already have a Climate Change Act which addresses these concerns—absolutely.

Whilst I accept that the Climate Change Act provides a great legislative framework for Victoria to manage emission reduction targets and climate action plans, I don’t believe that it is appropriately embedded into other acts, notably this one, our Planning and Environment Act. Embedding it, as I suggest, would ensure that government policy to address climate change actually flows through to implementation and decision-making—because that is where we are falling down.

The existing Climate Change Act criteria require government policy to ensure it, and I quote again, ‘appropriately takes account of climate change if it is relevant’ and also compels some government decision-makers to factor climate change into their determinations. But presently you would have to ask: who are the ‘some’ and why isn’t it incorporated into all planning decisions? This bill will make it clear. Who determines if climate change is relevant and, if the impacts are incremental, how is this to be taken into consideration?

The same lack of effect goes for Biodiversity 2037—a great plan to stop the decline of our native plants and animals, but often it’s in conflict with planning decisions, based on other planning requirements that compete with protecting our natural environment. Who wins? Often the developer with the most money to pursue their goals.

And if the government argues that our environment effects statement is the answer, then I’d like them to listen to this from Environmental Justice Australia, who argue that Victoria’s laws are inadequate to protect natural places from the impacts of development. They note that despite past reviews of environmental impact statement processes and numerous recommendations for reform, the EES act remains essentially in the same form today as when it was first introduced in the 1970s. They say that planning legislation needs to be updated: ‘As previous Committee reviews have recognised, Victoria’s … impact assessment system is out of date and incapable of meetings its objectives’—and I am quoting them here—‘It needs to be reformed to ensure that the impact of development proposals on Victorian ecosystems is undertaken’.

The submissions to the recent inquiry into the protections within the planning framework say the same thing—nearly 300 submissions from across Victoria, many of which raise the current lack of climate change policy in planning as a planning failure.

Glen Eira City Council supports the recommendation of an amendment to the planning act to provide clearer direction on the consideration of climate change in assessment and decision-making. They specify the inclusion of an additional and specific reference to climate change considerations within the objectives of the act, as this bill would do. They say, ‘There is … a disconnect between the state government’s Climate Change Strategy direction to build greener homes and buildings, and the day-to-day decisions that are being made. Although emissions reduction targets and commitments to adaptation have been made, these have not yet “trickled down”’—as they say—‘to inform decision-making within the built environment, and more particularly, to decisions made through Victoria’s planning system’.

Local councils and community groups discussed the urgency of climate change and the need for it to receive greater attention in the Victorian planning system. The Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment submitted that climate change should be ‘elevated as a central consideration in both strategic and statutory planning’—that is a quote. They indicated the urgent need to improve the current planning framework to ensure its climate change resilience.

Nillumbik Shire Council emphasised the need to ‘acknowledge climate change within the planning system’. It said—and here I quote again—‘There is a need for the [Planning and Environment Act] to consider the effects of and contributors to climate change and to mitigate the environmental, social and economic effects of climate change and any emerging planning issues’. They say there is a distinct disconnect between policy objectives in the planning policy framework in regard to climate change and existing implementation tools within the planning schemes.

Bayside City Council’s submission also outlined that a key gap within the planning act—and I quote here—‘is its undeniable weaknesses in relation to its lack of climate change action, environment protection and regulation. Whilst there are tools within the Victoria Planning Provisions that enable local environmental outcomes to be considered, these are consistently overlooked in favour of the objectives of the Act to facilitate development, as the environmental outcomes at the micro scale are often insignificant, allowing this to be overlooked or given lesser weight’.

The Municipal Association of Victoria asked the government to ensure that the enforceability of planning schemes in the context of climate change was considered and suggested that the Victorian government advocate for stronger climate change considerations in national construction and unilaterally implement reforms through Victorian building regulations.

The Victorian Greenhouse Alliance and the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment said in their joint submission that local government in Victoria had identified a disconnect between high-level positions on climate change, both by state and local government, and the day-to-day decisions that are being made through the planning system.

The Glen Eira Climate Action Group says, and I quote:

The current provisions to protect the environment are too vague and lack effectiveness as we continue to see high … [greenhouse gas emitting] projects proceed and loss of biodiversity and healthy environments.

The Act doesn’t consider climate change and does not apply the Climate Act 2017 to properly provide for climate to be considered in planning decisions for land-use, development and transport.

Even the Planning Institute of Australia says there is a lack of specific guidance to address key planning challenges, including climate change. They say:

PIA agrees with the following conclusions of the Auditor-General’s 2017 review of the planning system:

• Vague and competing State planning policy objectives and strategies, with limited guidance for their implementation, which reduce the clarity of the planning system’s direction in meeting State planning objectives …

The Climate and Planning Advocacy Group representing seven major alliances says, once again, there is a disconnect between high-level policy positions on climate change, both by state and local government, and the day-to-day decisions that are being made. In practice, local government decision-makers routinely report that the adoption of a zero-emissions target and commitments to adaptation have not yet ‘trickled down’ to inform decision-making within the built environment and, more particularly, to decisions made through Victoria’s planning system.

And then we go back to the state of the environment report—just this month. And the headlines say it all:

1. Climate change is affecting every aspect of our environment—temperature fluctuations, extreme events and fire risks are increasing.

2. The general outlook for our environment is deteriorating—pressure from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction are changing the landscape.

3. Environmental decline affects the wellbeing of all Australians.

4. Our environment is under extreme pressure.

5. Climate change is having a profound impact, and adaptation is vital.

The overall summary is grim. Obviously the many agencies are calling for change. The health of Australia’s environment is poor, and ecosystems are collapsing. At least 19 ecosystems are now near collapse. Key points in the report show that Australia has lost more mammal species than any other continent and has the highest rate of species decline in the developed world. More than 100 Australian species have been listed as either extinct or extinct in the wild. The major causes of extinction listed include habitat destruction and clearing.

The report also says that nature’s deteriorating health is threatening the wellbeing of all Australians. This was also evident in the species extinction report that identified indigenous mental health decline due to environmental destruction. Australia’s ecosystem collapse and unsustainable actions are threatening our own wellbeing. The previous state of the environment reports warned of future impacts of climate change. The new report documents that the impacts are already here—and getting worse.

Heatwaves kill more people in Australia than any other extreme event. Heatwave intensity in Australia has increased by 33 per cent over the last two decades, with at least 350 deaths between 2000 and 2018. And when heatwaves strike, we see the flow-on consequences—for instance, in our hospital emergency departments.

Climate change is also exacerbating air quality issues through dust, smoke and emissions. For example, the 2019–20 bushfires exposed over 80 per cent of the Australian population to smoke. This exposure killed an estimated 417 people.

The report says we need to find ways to more effectively monitor, manage and prioritise climate change to ensure sustainability. Sustainability means meeting today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations. It is founded on effective ecosystem protection and environmental stewardship. The state of the environment report contains a range of recommendations to tackle our sustainability challenges. It talks about building connections—connections between people, our country, economics and the environment.

And that is what I am asking for today: to build a connection between climate change and development. The report says we can turn things around with immediate action, innovative management and collaboration. But can our state government really take the steps to be proactive?

Now, I have detailed a lot of people calling for change just to show all here that this is coming from a multitude of sources.

The new federal environment and water minister, Minister Tanya Plibersek, said that the state of the environment report was a ‘shocking document’ that told ‘a story of crisis and decline in Australia’s environment [and] of a decade of government inaction and wilful ignorance’.

‘I won’t be putting my head in the sand,’ she said. ‘Under Labor, the environment is back on the priority list’. I wonder if it is on the priority list here.

I would like your support to do the same—to actually put our money where our mouth is, to strengthen the Planning and Environment Act to ensure that a response to climate change and protection of the environment is included in the purpose and enhances the objectives of this act. It’s a simple change, as you can see by what has been circulated. It’s a most necessary change. The planning act is old. It’s dated. It doesn’t reflect climate change, and it needs to. It needs to relate to other legislation.

Now, you—or the government—might say, ‘Let’s do it later, next term of Parliament, after the inquiry comes in’. But if the government’s Big Build agenda doesn’t incorporate climate change now, any resulting environmental decline is obviously a backward step and may not be easily reversed. So we need to act now, but it needs to be a balancing act to protect the environment—not just to pay lip-service but to actually take action.

A recent review on climate change adaption planning for biodiversity conservation by James Watson and others from the University of Queensland concludes that there has been slow progress in the development of appropriate methodologies for integrating climate change strategies. They say there needs to be holistic management. They say, and I quote once again:

Climate change is a fact of our times. It is already altering species from the poles to the tropics and because greenhouse gas emissions to date commit the Earth to substantial climate change, will do so for decades or centuries to come regardless of the mitigation efforts we undertake … We are critical of an approach that relies solely on status quo and continuing ‘best practices’ as we think it is inappropriate and in the long-term, could lead to conservation activities that are maladaptive. Planners must adapt to deal with the new reality that climate change presents …

I hope you can support this bill. We can’t continue our current practice of putting the environment last in planning decisions.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (13:09): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.