Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Well, in the spirit of collaboration that we’ve heard a lot about, it is a serious shame that the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who is no longer in the Chamber and hasn’t been for quite some time, has not moved each of these separately, because it makes it very difficult then to support it. There are some really important elements that would be left out and, indeed, there are parts of it that we’ve got some serious questions about and would like some clarification. Perhaps this side of the House would be happy, in the minister’s absence, to respond to questions about some of those points.
As it as it stands, there are some really key points in terms of action and calling on this House and getting set deadlines in place that aren’t here, that could and should be put on the record if the intention is actually to do it. If the intention is not, and today just passed an amended motion that has some delightful language in it but does not compel the government to do anything by any particular timeline, then why would it be supported? We actually need action. That’s the whole point. We need climate action. We need climate adaptation across the entire state. That’s why we’re here having the debate. To see amendments put forward and not have the minister here who moved it to be able to clarify some of those points is concerning. I do trust someone on that side of the House will be able to do so.
In particular, when we’re looking at the proposed amendments for paragraph 1, and the change, as proposed by the Liberals, looking at the Bureau of Meteorology’s forecasting for further intensification during spring: yes, that’s okay, that’s a fact. We’re also talking about summer in this instance and what’s coming for Tasmania and pointing out that paragraph 1 is not explicitly just talking about Tasmania but what is also happening elsewhere around the world which, while that’s not exclusively in the hands of this government, is something that we should all care about.
The fourth amendment is talking about paragraph 8, and there is actually an error in that amendment where it talks about tabling it in parliament rather than in the House, which is in the original motion. These are the two additional paragraphs at the end. The fifth amendment is to insert that it notes the government’s 2025 disaster resilience strategy. Sure, that exists; let’s note it. It’s fine. It calls on the government, so there is some action in that point, but it doesn’t say when that will explicitly be done. If the government could answer that on the record today as part of this debate, that would be fantastic. The sixth amendment is to insert paragraph 8 – sorry, this has been amended so many times it’s a little bit confusing as to which number is which – and that is to ensure Tasmania is adequately prepared for the coming summer to address any identified gaps in preparedness and clearly communicate those preparations and actions to the Tasmanian community in advance of the summer season.
That communication is welcome. That’s part of the intention and I’m going to talk on that in just a little minute, but I am just ensuring in this motion that it’s not calling on the government to do it. It’s also not, as per the original motion, talking about tabling that government action here in the parliament, so my question to the Liberals is: are you prepared to table that in parliament or are you trying to get out of it through some of these amendments? It’s simply not good enough to just have more fluffy language around the climate crisis when we actually need serious action. We’ve also heard a lot about communication and this is something that was tabled in August this year as part of the government’s response to the independent review on the Climate Change (State Action) Act.
Recommendation 6 talks about engagement and that it will strengthen stakeholder engagement approaches, which is incredibly important for the intention of this motion as well, getting communication out clearly to the Tasmanian community, and that it will increase opportunities for ongoing participation. That is absolutely vital across Tasmania regarding some of the climate impacts, be they flood, coastal erosion, or bushfires. That local knowledge in terms of emergency response, but also adaptation, is absolutely essential. Having the ability for local communities to have more say in each of those three areas is of the utmost importance for the safety of those communities and their resilience after disaster, as well as that adaptation and how we best go about it. One example that comes to mind is 2023, I believe, in Coles Bay, where there was a bushfire that went through at the start of spring, not in the normal summer bushfire season that was once normal, if you can put it that way, and we had the emergency radio broadcaster telling people to leave now, but it’s a one-way road in and out on the peninsula and the bushfire was at the north of that road on the way out, so people were trying to leave and had it not been for local saying, you actually can’t get out, you’re driving into the fire, it could have been a disaster.
That local knowledge is so critical, and that’s just one example of where it comes into play. It also calls for improving engagement with regional communities and local government, as Dr Woodruff has already spoken about, and improved engagement with young people in particular, who we know are suffering from climate anxiety. Part of that comes from a lack of tangible actions and pathways forward to overcome this, to put steps in place as to what adaptation and resilience actually looks like. Recommendation 7 of the response is specifically communication, that the government will update climate communication and those engagement approaches. Developing a dedicated climate information website is absolutely a way forward. In fact, I was genuinely shocked that we didn’t already have that. Improving the accessibility of information ‑
