Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, but also to identify some implementation concerns to be considered which partially align with the amendment proposed by the member for Page.

I'm pleased that the Australian government is recognising the impact of climate change on the frequency of extreme weather events, and acknowledging that pre-disaster mitigation is essential in moderating the severity of post-disaster recovery. Natural disasters in Australia have devastating financial and social impacts on individuals, families, local communities, businesses and governments. Australia's 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires were the worst on record, burning through 24 million hectares of land, claiming lives, and destroying homes and livelihoods. The subsequent Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements in 2020 recognised the contribution of climate change to that event, and that the 2019-20 bushfire season may have provided only a glimpse of the types of events that Australia may face in the future.

The floods in South-East Queensland and New South Wales at the beginning of this year were Australia's worst recorded flood disasters. Damage from the floods cost more than $1½ billion and, as of 8 March, $282 million in disaster payments had been paid to flood victims, but it still wasn't enough. Right now the east coast is experiencing continued significant flooding, with more expected to come. Climate change is here and we are seeing the devastating effects.

I commend the government for acknowledging that Australia's disaster resilience response needs specific funding, and acknowledge that this is a Productivity Commission recommendation in its report into natural disasters which is supported by local government and disaster relief bodies. But this will only be the start. A recent Deloitte report said:

… natural disasters cost the Australian economy $38 billion per year on average, representing—

about—

2% of Australia's … (GDP) in 2020. Even under a low emissions scenario—whereby timely action will see emissions start to fall and reach zero by 2100—this cost will rise to at least $73 billion annually by 2060 …

This puts the current $200 million commitment into perspective. This report suggests that scaling up investments in both physical resilience, such as infrastructure, and community resilience, such as preparedness programs, will be required to reduce the significant anticipated costs from natural disasters, even under a low-emissions future.

We need to improve coordination and targeting of investments to avoid the impacts on some of the most vulnerable areas in Australia. The $200 million commitment represents 0.5 per cent of the annual cost of natural disasters. It will need to be allocated carefully to create the most impact for the investment, and the amount committed will need to be scaled up commensurate with impact. I note that the funding limit will be reviewed every five years. I urge the government to review this more regularly given the scale of the impact. But it's a good start, and I look forward to watching this space closely and holding government to account.

I also commend the government for committing $50 million this year for the Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts of natural disasters and coastal hazards such as storm surges and coastal inundation. But this commitment finishes at the end of this financial year and the effects of climate change continue to destroy our dune ecosystems. We need to do more to protect these coastal areas. Protecting our coastline is essential for Australia's quest to build resilience and prepare for natural disasters. I urge the government to make an ongoing allocation for Coastcare to be funded from the Disaster Ready Fund.

In my electorate of Curtin there are more than 15 kilometres of coastline stretching from Leighton Beach in the south to Trigg Beach in the north. The estimated cost to government of managing the 55 identified erosion hot spots could be $110 million over the next five years. So much of this work is being done by passionate community volunteers. Along the stretch in my electorate we have a number of very active Coastcare groups, including Cottesloe Coastcare, Cambridge Coastcare and Stirling Natural Environment Coastcare. These groups are made up of passionate members who care about our community and our environment. I've visited them and seen firsthand the effects of climate change on our dunes and beaches, and the work they're trying to do to counter that impact.

While applications for the Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program have already closed, I spoke with Cottesloe Coastcare about how funding our coastline would protect our natural habitat and assist our community. Since 1996, Cottesloe Coastcare has raised funds for fencing to protect fragile sand dunes and to build access walkways to the beach. But the bulk of Cottesloe Coastcare's work is revegetation to increase foredune physical resilience and to improve biodiversity. Volunteers hand-remove invasive environmental weeds, collect seeds of local plant species and restore areas, planting, hand-weeding and watering about 100,000 plants in total. More than half of Cottesloe's degraded coastal dune system has been restored by these efforts.

Cottesloe Coastcare has raised funding in excess of $300,000 over 25 years for dune restoration projects, which has been matched by the town of Cottesloe, but so much more could be done. I asked Cottesloe what they could do with federal government grants if the Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program were an ongoing program. A grant of $100,000 would fund two years of on-the-ground activity, allowing revegetation of a hectare of degraded coastal land. It's estimated that five to seven hectares of degraded coastal dunes remain on Cottesloe's foreshore. A grant of a million dollars would allow the rapid completion of the restoration of Cottesloe's foredunes to nearly original condition, providing physical stability. This work adds to the beauty and amenity of the dunes, but, importantly, it also allows nature to protect itself from natural disasters. Dune vegetation is the best protection against erosion. We need a sustainable, equitable and efficient funding model to enable the implementation of coastal hazard risk planning. It needs to be part of the Disaster Ready Fund.

I'd also like to raise some concerns that the bill does not include any details about how this new resilience fund will be allocated, and it seems to confer broad ministerial powers on how to allocate funds, without any parliamentary oversight. The bill does not include any details about how projects competing for disaster mitigation funding will be prioritised. I have no doubt there will be disaster mitigation projects proposed all over the country that greatly exceed $200 million. The varied examples of eligible projects presented by my fellow members show the challenges in defining disaster mitigation. I assume that projects will need to be prioritised according to the value of the mitigation benefit. But is this a financial value, a property value, a life value? And what criteria will be used, and who will make these decisions? The lack of clarity about prioritisation criteria and eligibility criteria will create challenges and potentially produce suboptimal outcomes.

In conclusion, I support this bill, given that it addresses the specific need to fund disaster resilience efforts, but I strongly urge the government to, firstly, include coastal hazard management in the funding allocated to the Disaster Ready Fund; secondly, review the quantum of the Disaster Ready Fund, given that it represents only 0.5 per cent of the annual cost to the country of natural disasters; and, thirdly, commit to transparency in relation to the allocation of the Disaster Ready Fund, on both the definition of disaster mitigation and the criteria that will be used to prioritise projects.

See this speech in context