NEW PLANNING LAWS BEFORE NSW PARLIAMENT

In a post on 19 June the CVCC reported on the NSW Government's drastic agenda for a new planning system in NSW.  ( See  Open slather for developers in NSW )

In the months since the Government released its White Paper and draft legislation there has been a very determined community campaign led by the Better Planning Network and other community groups such as the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC) to alert the general community to the dangers of the Government plans.  While this has led to the Government making some changes to its legislation, it has still not addressed major areas of concern. In essence the new system continues to favour developers and industry at the expense of the general community and the environment.

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW, the peak conservation body in the state, points to some of the major problems:

• The legislation continues to provide for fast-track approval of ‘code assessable’ development, without community consultation or merit based environmental assessment.
• Government has announced that code assessment will be limited to ‘growth areas’, but there are no provisions in the legislation to give effect to this commitment.
• The ‘one stop shop’ provisions of the legislation concentrate unprecedented and excessive power in the Department of Planning, by giving the Director-General the power to override the advice of expert agencies, including the EPA and Office of Environment and Heritage.
• The legislation provides multiple mechanisms for developers to override local plans, including rezoning applications, rezoning appeals, strategic compatibility certificates and a broad power for the Minister to amend local plans.  
• The legislation does not make reference to the established principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the precautionary principle.     

To see the legislation go to the NSW Parliament website  -  Planning Legislation .

The revised legislation was passed by the Legislative Assembly (the lower house), which is controlled by the Liberal-National Party Government, on 30 October. Before it can become law it also has to be passed by the upper house, the Legislative Council.  As the Government does not have a majority in the Legislative Council, it is possible that the Bill may be rejected there if a majority of Councillors are persuaded to reject them.  The legislaton will be introduced and debated in the Legislative Council any time from 12 November onwards.

Groups concerned about the Bill are encouraging people to contact non-government members of the Legislative Council to urge them to vote against the legislation.  The Better Planning Network website has information on how to contact Legislative Council members to urge them to vote against this  legislation.

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND THE NSW GOVERNMENT

The recent bushfires in the Blue Mountains and other parts of NSW have highlighted a serious problem which is likely to become worse as climate change gathers momentum.

Governments and the general community will need to develop strategies to adapt to the diverse challenges thrown at them by climate change - challenges such as more frequent and more severe bushfires.  Obviously this should be seen by all levels of government as a high priority.

It is therefore very disappointing that the NSW Government, which has a responsibility to prepare NSW for a future where climate change is a major issue, has made severe cuts to areas of the public service which advise government on climate adaptation. (For details of the cuts, see a report in The Sydney Morning Herald )

In a TV interview on the same day as the  newspaper report the NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell stated that he was concerned about climate change and that his slashing of the public service positions did not mean that there would be no research into adaptation as the government was providing funding for universities to undertake reseach into adaptation.

Whether the decision to do away with the scientific positions was ideological or whether the Government believed universities  would provide adaptation advice more efficiently or more cheaply is uncertain.

The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition believes that the most effective way of ensuring that timely information on climate adaptation is delivered across the range of government departments which need this information for future planning is by way of scientists employed by the state rather than through a hodge-podge of state-funded research programs in universities.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Prime Minister (PM) Tony Abbott is pushing ahead with his election promise to repeal the carbon tax.  He is hoping to push this through before the end of the year even though the upper house - the Senate - remains under the control of the Labor Party (ALP) and the Greens until the new Senate is installed in July next year.  The PM is trying to persuade Labor to accept that he has a mandate for the change and that they should accede to his demand for its repeal early in the parliamentary sitting.  Behind his urging is the threat of a double dissolution some time in the new year if Labor does not fall into line.  Labor has so far rejected Abbott's demands.

The government has claimed that the repeal of the carbon tax will lead to a significant fall in electricity prices.  Environment Minister Greg Hunt has  claimed it will save households $3000 over six years.  A recent article by economic journalist Peter Martin (Why cut a nearly undetectable tax?) queries both claims about the impact of the tax and the impact of doing away with it.

But the fate of the carbon tax is only one issue related to climate change that has been in the news lately. The recent disastrous bushfires in NSW - particularly those in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney - have sparked some controversy about whether these fires are related to climate change.

Both Greg Hunt and the Prime Minister have denied that the fires have any connection to climate change.

In disputing the notion that climate change had any relationship to the fires, Mr Hunt claimed that he had checked Wikipedia to establish that bushfires had been frequent in Australia since before European settlement. It is truly astounding that we have a federal Minister claiming Wikipedia as a source of information on which he bases important public statements. It is also astonishing that Hunt dismisses so readily any notion that the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing could be associated with a changing climate.

The head of the United Nations climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres,  indicated that there was a link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in Australia, although she conceded that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link.  She stated, "but what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe and Australia; that these will continue in their intensity and frequency."

The Prime Minister refuted any connection between climate change and the bushfires, claiming Ms Figueres was "talking through her hat".   He stated,  "These fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they're a function of life in Australia."

Whether or not the fires can be directly attributed to climate change, it is obvious that weather conditions over a period of months created an extreme fire danger situation.  We had a warm dry winter followed by a much hotter spring than usual with strong winds.

Scientists are telling us that, as the climate warms, we can expect more severe weather, including more frequent, and fiercer, bushfires. That would appear to have been happening in recent years - with the horrific fires in Victoria in 2009, serious fires in Tasmania early last year and  now the fires around Sydney-Newcastle this month.

Ostrich-like behaviour from both the federal Environment Minister, who is responsible for the Government's "Direct Action" plan to reduce carbon emissions, and from the Prime Minister only serves to make them look foolish both in this country and abroad. It certainly does not make climate change go away or lessen the need for an effective response to this very serious issue.