Buybacks and relocations deserve consideration as climate change bites

Recent comments by Emergency Management Minister Murray Watt have reignited a debate over whether Australians should be relocated from areas prone to natural disaster, prohibited from building homes in high-risk zones or be forced through planning laws to build structures that can better withstand extreme weather.

Kayaking became one of the smoothest ways of getting around in Shepparton after the regional hub was inundated.Credit:Louis Trerise

Speaking in the wake of last year’s devastating and widespread floods, Watt said the increasing frequency of extreme weather events was an “indication that climate change is here right now”, and that it meant we needed to think seriously about disaster risk when planning future housing development. “It makes absolutely no sense for all levels of government to spend billions in disaster recovery while we continue to see housing built on floodplains,” he said.

As for those already living on floodplains – and the past two years have shown just how many people that is – Watt told Radio National in November that governments should consider moving them to higher ground.

The same thinking surely applies to communities in regions threatened by bushfire and coastal erosion. When homes are destroyed and lives taken, it is not only the immediate victims who suffer loss, but all Australians, through taxpayer-funded relief schemes and higher insurance premiums. Home buybacks from last year’s NSW floods alone are expected to cost the NSW and federal governments $800 million.

While Watt has yet to detail exactly how governments might discourage people from living in places that are at risk of extreme weather, or move them to safer regions, the suggestion needs to be taken seriously. The question is how far we are prepared to go, and how it could play out.

In Victoria, we have already tested one such idea, thanks to the royal commission into the devastating 2009 bushfires.

Its final report into the tragedy that claimed 173 lives and 2133 homes found many of those who died were defending properties that were well prepared according to CFA guidelines. As a result, the commission found “there are some areas where the bushfire risk is so high that development should be restricted”. If the planning changes did not limit the construction of homes in at-risk areas “more prescriptive controls should be introduced”.

More radically, acknowledging that building controls would not retrospectively improve existing properties, the royal commission recommended a buyback scheme to help people move away voluntarily. This would include non-compulsory land acquisition “for existing developments in areas at unacceptably high bushfire risk”.

While the government of the day rushed through the planning controls, it baulked at the thought of the potentially massive buyback. As the government walked the policy back, newspapers were briefed to suggest the buyback could have applied to 49,000 properties in the state and potentially cost taxpayers $15 billion. (The government did eventually implement a far smaller scheme, limiting eligibility to just those owners who had lost their primary residence, 116 properties in total.)

Large buyback schemes would be unwieldy and complex. They pit individual rights, including strong emotional attachments to home and hearth, against heightened risks and the common good. Despite this, they are an idea that deserves continuing consideration. Economically, it would probably be far cheaper in the long run to move people out of harm’s way than to help them recover after the damage is done. As climate change injects more energy into an environment already prone to extremes, this problem will only get worse.

But if we have learnt anything from the recent spate of natural disasters and the threat of more, it is that we must act sensibly and with resolve to prevent the loss of life and property. Surely this is preferable to waiting to rebuild after the next inevitable calamity.

Michael Bachelard sends a newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article