Tuesday, 2 May 2023

Bills

Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mary-Anne Thomas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:31): I am delighted to rise and contribute to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. It is the first bill in the water portfolio for this term of Parliament, and I know many members on this side of the house are very keen to see this debated because it is nice to see legislation that supports regional communities, rather than the same old metro focus that we have seen. So I am pleased to see it from that perspective and many other perspectives as well. I also want to extend my thanks to the minister’s staff for organising the bill briefing and providing some important context to this legislation. I want to thank Georgia for liaising, and Alieta and Rose from the water team within the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. It is complex and it is an often misunderstood area to work within, so I appreciate the work that they are doing in that field.

The bill amends the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 and the Water Act 1989. The changes to those acts are largely technical in nature, and I would describe them more as legislative housekeeping. We know the bill seeks to extend the last possible date for a provision of the water catchment act to come into operation, which I will touch on a little bit later. It also makes minor amendments to the proposed new part 4AA of the Water Act, particularly around place of take, and makes other minor technical and related amendments, as I touched on before.

Just to provide some context and background to the newer members of this house who may not have been here, in 2021 the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act was introduced, and it made some very significant changes to the water framework within Victoria. This includes the introduction of place-of-take approvals designed to help secure water supply for irrigators, particularly downstream of the choke, which I will talk about in a minute, and particularly in years where there is a shortfall of water, something we see fairly often in Australia. The Barmah Choke is a natural constraint on the flow of water for users particularly downstream, obviously, of the choke, and with increasing demands downstream from the choke more and more water is being pushed through, much to the detriment of the environment and of the choke itself.

The Murray system irrigation has many challenges. As a former irrigator and someone who still lives on the Murray River, I know only too well the importance that water has for the economic wellbeing of our communities. At the same time we need to balance irrigation rights, town use, consumptive users, recreation on the rivers and the environment of course. For those who do not know the Barmah Choke, it is situated between Nathalia and Echuca on the Murray River, and it is a very narrow stretch of the river. In fact some people call it ‘the Narrows’. If you ever get a chance, go to Picnic Point and take the boat ride. It is a most interesting exercise to go down the Narrows. It really is an outstanding environmental asset, and it is worth having a look at. I encourage you to do so. Over the years this has got more and more restricted. Some say 9200 megalitres can pass through it a day, but it is now coming back closer to 7000 megalitres a day, so depending on who you are talking to there will be a differential.

To explain what happens in the Barmah Choke, most parts of the Murray River have a flood plain. To understand flood plains, when you send too much water down the river it spills out onto that flood plain as the water passes and then when the bulk of the water passes the water can come back into the river again. Now, where the Narrows is in the Barmah Choke, it is actually a perched river system, and by ‘perched’ I mean it is like a bathtub. When you fill up a bathtub and the water overflows, as we know, you will never get that water back into the bathtub again, and this is what happens at the Narrows and the choke. So that water flows out of the system – and all the river red gums get saturated, which is no good for them – and it never returns back into the system. This is why you cannot push too much water down the Barmah Choke, because it goes over the top. Some makes it back into the system; there are some small returns. But on the whole that water never makes it back into the system, whereas if we went further upstream or downstream and put too much water down the river, it would still make it back into the system and make it down to South Australia. That is what the choke is. It is a restrictor and literally is a choke in the system, and that is why whether you are upstream of the choke or downstream of the choke is really important. That is what this legislation is addressing, particularly for people who are downstream of the choke, because there are only 7000 megalitres a day that can get through it. That is exactly where the constraints are, and how that water is used and managed is what this legislation addresses.

Just to put a finer point on that, if you look upstream of the choke you have got, between Yarrawonga and Nathalia, a smaller area of irrigation ground and not as many towns, whereas if you go downstream of the choke you have got Echuca, Swan Hill, Kerang, Mildura and South Australia. You have got massive irrigation areas and bigger towns, so they have to be far more careful how they manage their 7000 megs a day, whereas for those upstream it is pretty straightforward. You can send more water down from Yarrawonga or Dartmouth, as long as you are not sending more than 7000 a day through the choke. Now you have got a situation where you have got reduced capacity from the choke but then a growing demand on the other hand. You have got almond growers, you have got citrus growers and massive table grape and wine grape growers downstream, and you have to manage this balance to make sure everybody is happy and also make sure the delivery of that water does not come under too much pressure. It places industries downstream of the choke at great risk, and what we see is, particularly if we get a heatwave or a snap of hot weather, this is where the difficulty comes in. You can imagine after four or five days of 40-degree weather everybody decides they want to irrigate on the same day, because it is quite hot, and with their trees, whether it is almonds or whether it is citrus or whatever it might be, everybody wants to irrigate. Well, not everybody can do it on the one day.

This legislation starts to talk about an assist, a priority, a rationing, so to speak, to say, ‘Okay, one person might get to use the water on Monday, somebody else gets to use it on Tuesday and somebody else gets to use it on Wednesday’, as opposed to everybody saying, ‘No, I want my water on Monday’. So this will put some framework around how corporates, how farmers, how all users can extract that water. It is really important that we get on top of this now, because as things develop and as time goes by this is only going to get worse and worse in terms of there being still only 7000 megalitres that can be shared around, and as development takes place or better systems come into place, people will still only have 7000 megalitres to divide between those downstream. Businesses have an annual extraction rate. For example, you might have a licence that says you have got a thousand megalitres for the season, but it is not the thousand megalitres that is the concern. It is how you want to take that water and when you want to take that water, so that is what this addresses, to make sure that there is a priority that says, ‘This is what your licence says, and this is when you can extract it’ – not particularly saying what day but actually putting a priority in order so all users are not arguing amongst themselves.

If, for example, a corporate comes to town and wants to put in a hundred thousand hectares of table grapes, citrus, almonds or whatever it might be, existing users will then say, ‘Hang on a minute, I’ve always used the water on the Monday and the Tuesday. What’s going to happen when this corporate comes in and wants to use the water on the Monday and Tuesday?’ That is why I say, if we can try to prioritise, get this argument out of the way and make a water policy and framework, it actually makes it a lot easier into the future to decide who gets the water and when, and that is what is most important about having those extraction priorities. If we couple this with the increase in the sediment build-up in the choke and the previous increase in the number of developments further downstream, the situation is simply becoming untenable. As I say, it is not out of the ballpark yet, but in years down the track it will be. To the credit of former Minister Neville, there have been some sensible measures put in place that will help protect the choke and ensure that there is enough water for the whole basin, and that bill passed in late 2021, with the stipulation that the provisions within it would come into operation on 1 July 2023, which is just a couple of months away. Unfortunately, the government seem to have dropped the ball somewhere along the line and all of a sudden have realised, ‘We’re heading towards 1 July and we’re not ready. We haven’t consulted or educated the community on how this is actually going to roll out and happen.’ I am told the reason this consultation with the community has not progressed is because of the floods. I am not sure that is completely correct, but they are saying that because of the floods there has been minimal uptake and they need to get more stakeholder engagement. I actually think this is a good news story for the government, and I am sure the government wants to spread the word over a longer period of time to make sure that everybody gets the message, because in many ways this is a good news story for people downstream of the choke and the future of irrigators and consumptive users.

One of the reasons cited for the delay was the October floods, as I say, which caused a huge amount of damage right across Victoria and the impacts that are still being felt. Now, I would like to note that the government has had over 12 months to consult and now needs an extension to the deadline because of the floods, but when we talk about the flood inquiry that the other place is doing and suggest people need time to get their submissions in, we have only got two months to get submissions in. I wrote to the chair, and we got that extended by a month. But I am just wanting to highlight, I suppose, when it suits your narrative you say, ‘We need 12 months more to consult’, but when it does not suit your narrative you will say, ‘No, we’re only going to have two months to consult’. So that is where I see some differences.

In terms of talking about the floods, I was talking to John Clurey, a former Katamatite farmer, on Sunday. He now lives in Shepparton. John is well into his mature years, and he told me he was pushed from pillar to post during the floods. He had to get out of his house. He has got black mould under the house, and he has been staying in motels. He would stay in a motel in Yarrawonga for a week and then they would send him to Kyabram for two weeks and then they would send him to Rochester for a week or somewhere else, and he was just getting pushed around. And all this guy wants to do is get home. I just think there is still more work to be done in terms of getting resources to these communities who have been flooded out, because it really is tough. We know how the people in Maribyrnong suffered, but certainly when you look at the communities of Shepparton and Seymour, Rochester in particular and Echuca of course, there are so many communities that have been damaged by the floods, and it is really important that they are heard and they get the resources they need. So that is really important. On that, I encourage people to get their submissions in. They have got until 5 June to make sure they have their say about how the floods affected them or their community. I am by no means criticising the work of those who for the most part do the work, but I look at Operation Daintree, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those on those benches opposite. They cannot ask for more time to consult on a good news story but less time when it comes to giving submissions and making sure that people get their say as well.

Returning more specifically to the bill, as I outlined before, the place of take is a new approach which is designed to provide clarity and protect the water rights of water holders, especially in times of water shortfalls and especially with the challenges of, as I say, getting the water through the choke. New research released in the Aither Water Supply and Demand in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin report indicates that the lower Murray is in a bit of trouble when it comes to water availability, which is why these reforms are so important. So that backs up the evidence and certainly backs up what this legislation is trying to solve. According to the current demand for horticulture, a dry year for the lower Murray will see potential shortfalls, and when a moderately dry year such as 2019 occurs, there will be a shortfall of around about 100 gigalitres. Now, we all remember 2019 was a dry and hot year, but it certainly was no millennium drought. But looking at the connected Murray, a moderately dry year could certainly lead to shortfalls. When factoring in future horticultural demand there will be huge shortfalls and a need for careful rationing and ensuring that water is shared fairly amongst the holders, and that is what this is doing.

This is critical for ensuring the stability of the communities further down the Murray and also for the farmers and the plantation owners who rely on the water to produce their crops, because they are a massive part of our local economies. I do worry that the buybacks have been mooted again – well, not mooted; the federal minister has said she is ready to do buybacks, which is really sad because there are still so many other ways we can make water savings before we just go to that easy option of buybacks. When you go to buybacks, go down that path, it is very easy to do – hand out the cash, somebody will pay you the money – but it is the whole community that suffers when you take more water out of those communities. The place-of-take reforms should make delivery rights clearer and more consistent, and the reforms in this bill also allow for this to extend to other declared water systems into the future, which could ensure that we have a well-managed water system.

I also note the article by Peter Hunt in the Weekly Times on 19 April, which raises some alarm bells about the progress of important sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanisms, or SDLAMs, as the acronym goes. With the upcoming budget, reports have indicated that it is going to be a very tough budget. Everybody on the other side of the house is saying it is going to be tight and it is going to be nasty, but it is concerning that nine of these flood plain restoration programs have been halted due to the issue of cost. I heard the Minister for Water in the other place saying that the federal government will not guarantee funding for these restoration programs. There are nine of them, as I say, and there is up to 72.5 gigalitres that can be generated out of those savings. As I say, if there is money to go and make buybacks, why isn’t there money to make sure these nine programs in Victoria for saving water can be honoured rather than just saying the easy option is to do buybacks? It is important that the state minister in the other place and the federal minister really put their heads together and make sure that we get the best outcomes rather than the easiest outcome of going to buybacks.

Further, the minister went on VictorianCountry Hour on the ABC and refused to say whether or not these projects have been put on hold or will or will not be put on hold. I suppose we will wait until the budget to see what comes out of that, but the minister did say up to 60 gigs is still up in the air due to the uncertainty. We need every single drop of water to avoid the shortfalls and also to avoid those damaging buybacks by the federal government. I do note that the minister took the opportunity to criticise the former Liberal–National government for, which I find hard to believe, not coming to the table. I want to take the opportunity to say that it was actually the former Liberal–National government that said, ‘Buybacks are definitely off the table, and we will make the savings elsewhere rather than go to that easy option of going down the path of buybacks.’

While I am talking buybacks and savings, there is a hydrological study and modelling around the Eppalock Dam, and that needs to be funded sooner rather than later to make sure that towns like Rochester certainly have some more assurance or understanding of where we can get to to make sure that they do not get flooded out. Some of these floods were avoidable – I am not saying entirely, but certainly in some of those high-risk areas the flooding could have been reduced or the damage could have been reduced. If some of these studies get done asap, that will then allow us to look at where to from here for Lake Eppalock.

Now I will touch on a couple of other aspects of the bill. There is a slight rewording of the language around the fees paid for a place-of-take application. As I understand it, the fees are charged for every application that is put in, which sometimes leads to one individual paying the application fee two or three times a day. That is ridiculous and it is frustrating, and some might say that is an example of red tape. The proposed changes to the wording should therefore allow that only one fee needs to be paid for that day, essentially lumping together all the application fees into one lump payment so that you are not paying over and over for effectively the one transaction. This is a commonsense move. I am informed that the day-to-day operations can occur, we just need to make sure that it is in the legislation. I do note as well that the minister has discretion to determine a fee to accompany the application if it is not already in the regulations. This should mean that any gaps can be caught and dealt with accordingly.

Clause 6 of the bill touches upon the requirements around the information to be stored and kept by governments in the water register, including for those with certain water rights and those with place-of-take approvals. It is important to ensure that there is a level of transparency within the water market, and this follows on from recommendations by the ACCC a few years ago about the lack of quality information that is accessible for water market participants. I note the former minister did indicate support for a fully transparent market, which does have merit. I also believe there is a fine line that needs to be found between giving too much public information and obviously too much private information. That balance has to be struck to make sure that, particularly for those with higher annual water allocations, we know who owns that water. There must be a great deal of caution when publishing that in the public domain, because it follows that some of the smaller irrigators can be exposed to more aggressive operators with more resources.

I would urge the minister and the department to regulate this very carefully. Any feedback that comes as a result of this should be given due consideration to ensure that any issues can be caught early and any changes can be made as soon as possible. As I said before, I think the current guidelines are that around 2 per cent of total water share is for private irrigators, and I think that is the threshold. I also understand that no-one is above this threshold yet. It seems to be a reasonable system so far, but we must be careful regulating and sharing information at all times.

I just want to touch on interstate trade, also included in this bill, which is again another complex area of water policy. Currently there are regulations in place that dictate which zones can trade water to other zones. However, in Victoria we have used for some time a system which has misallocated water from Victoria as New South Wales water, for example. A New South Wales irrigator had bought the water shares. This legislation will make minor changes so that the system will revert to a tag system, which ensures that any water from Victoria that is used or bought externally is still considered Victorian water per se, tagging it as such. It is a minor legislative change, but it fundamentally ensures that Victoria is not losing any water to other states, and it will have substantial impacts on the operation of these water trades. Perhaps more simply put, water from Victoria will remain Victorian water.

I was in Acheron only a couple of weeks ago with my colleague the member for Eildon, who is also going to speak on this bill, talking to locals who had been impacted by the October 2022 floods. This is part of the Goulburn system, which obviously feeds into the Murray system, which is downstream of the choke, but it is still a very important part of that irrigation system and the Murray system that flows in there. The locals at Acheron were telling me about the huge damage caused by the floods last year and the lack of early warning notice that they got. They were told something like 8000 megalitres were going to come their way at about 8 o’clock at night. It turns out 30,000 megalitres came their way at about 2 o’clock in the morning. No-one can change what Mother Nature is going to send down, but what we can do is have better early warning systems, particularly as our dams get full closer to those higher rainfall periods.

I have been in the north for 35 years. Every flood we have had has been in October, so it is fair to say that in September if your dams are already full, you should consider doing something about that. A good policy would be to say, ‘Well, how about letting some water out?’ This is about changing policy for Goulburn–Murray Water, because at the end of the day, if you let the water out and it does not rain again, somebody is always going to say, ‘Who’s the fool that let the water out? Because it didn’t rain again.’ Well, nobody knows it is not going to rain again, but nine out of 10 years the bulk of our rain comes in October, so it is not rocket science.

I think there is work that can be done on policies, and they are some of the things that probably could have been included in this bill, because as I say, when I was down at Acheron just seeing the bridge, there was 10 metres of the bridge chopped away. Many people have lost infrastructure. They have replaced infrastructure and they have replanted their pastures, but they are very concerned with the level. The current level for 1 October is 100 per cent. That is the infill curve. That is the aim – 1 October. They are concerned that, because they are already at 94 per cent in the Eildon system now, that could fill up very quickly. Again, there is a really tough balance, but I think we do not want to see those people flooded out again, certainly not one year after the last flood – that would be devastating – and that is what we heard from that group that met with us the other day.

I also note the unique position of Lake Eildon, as it feeds into the Murray system downstream of the choke. As I suggest and as a result, this water can be used by South Australia and New South Wales irrigators, which again loops back into the tagged interstate trading. Some of this flooding could have been avoided if some of those guidelines were in place. As I say, I do not have the answers to what those guidelines should be, but certainly a review of those guidelines would be of assistance and would help those people in Acheron, Alexandra and those sorts of places to feel more comfortable.

As we talk about ‘place of take’, we also need to talk about ‘place of receive’, and by that I mean when you receive water that you did not really want, whether it is inundation or flooding that has occurred in your region. That also has to be included when we talk about place of take and the benefits of that on the Murray system and all systems. We cannot forget the place of receive is awkward for a lot of communities too, because they get water they do not expect, and this brings me back to increasing the size of dams.

I have been saying for many years about dams like Lake Buffalo that the government already owns the land around Lake Buffalo. While we cannot increase the size, it was always planned, in 1961 when it was built, to be increased, if for nothing else but flood mitigation. This would put a lot of people at ease, knowing that dam had been increased. With increasing the size of the dam, you cannot just increase it for flood mitigation alone, but certainly you could have that buffer zone there, that bit of freeboard that would help communities sleep better at night knowing there is a capacity there – that when the dam is technically full or close to full, there is that bit of freeboard.

The Premier and the previous water minister keep saying, ‘Dams don’t make it rain.’ I get that. Dams do not make it rain. Building dams does not make it rain, but when you have got a bigger bucket and Mother Nature sends down more water and turns the tap on harder, it is a more practical approach to have larger dams to store that water. You are harvesting water that is just going to go downstream and do damage to a community downstream, when it could be held for another day. As I say, the good people of Acheron are not alone in their summation, and they are really concerned about how this spring could look. I also note hypothetically that better regulation of water could mean less water that is sent out to sea without being used. If we make better use of that water – what is going down the Murray and other river systems – we might have fewer shortfalls in water delivery and achieve better results for our water holders. This is a simplistic point of view, I know, but again it touches on the aspects of these reforms.

I was advised in the briefing that the reason the amendments were not attached to another omnibus bill was primarily for time’s sake, but we need to get this bill’s associated changes through Parliament before 1 July, because that is when they are enacted. To me it is somewhat strange that the government is still working towards the July deadline and needs another year to implement these changes. Given that there is feasibility only six weeks away, really a month or two could have really resolved that, but we are going to have another year for them to sell this message. I sincerely hope that the extra work will allow for more fulsome consultation and greater understanding of the community before the changes are rolled out, as it has been a long extension for this project, but they will be reforms that are well received.

I want to conclude my remarks by just highlighting that whilst we do not oppose the bill, with both this bill and the 2021 act we still have genuine concerns about the management of water in Victoria. There have been some very positive developments in the water sector under the former minister, as I suggested, and I acknowledge former Minister Neville’s work, but there are still areas where more could be done and indeed should be done for irrigators and communities, particularly those downstream of the choke.

I spoke about buybacks before and the threat of buybacks. There needs to be a review into the 2012 carryover rules. Evidence suggests there are 300 to 400 gigalitres from spillable accounts that have never been credited to the environment. That water and the spillable account need to be credited somewhere, because otherwise nobody is getting the benefit of that water. Instead of having these dangerous buybacks that we do not want in the north, there could be water that is already going to the environment that is not being counted and that should be used. So a review of the carryover rules certainly can benefit consumptive users. Those rules were brought in in 2012.

Again I just want to highlight that flood inquiry, as I am running out of time. About 5 June is the cut-off date. I certainly look forward to hearing from my colleagues who will have a contribution on this. I know the member for Gippsland South is going to have a say on this but so will the member for Mildura. I know the member for Mildura has the most to gain or lose out of these changes, because downstream of the choke it is really important that they understand it and they are good with the changes, because it is important. They will be the beneficiaries or the losers. The communities in her patch have a lot to gain or lose, and so does the member for Murray Plains – those areas around Swan Hill and Kerang will also benefit or lose on these. So with that being said, I once again reiterate that we are not opposing this bill.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (17:01): I too rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is actually to extend the start date of the new water place-of-take framework which we introduced with the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021. The aim of this is to go ahead and create a better management system for Victoria’s water system. Time and time again I have stood in this place and talked about how important it is for good long-term governments to be constantly looking for ways in which to improve frameworks, and creating a better management system for Victoria’s water system is indeed a very, very important thing for folks here in Victoria right now but also for generations to come. We know that for water users, especially those living in regional Victoria and working in our agricultural sector, the water entitlements that allow them to take, use or extract water for their own purposes are extremely important not only to their businesses but also for the Victorian economy. What our government knows from talking to them about the framework changes proposed in this bill is that they need more time to understand those changes that have taken place and how the changes that this bill introduces will affect their ability to take and indeed use water.

It is also clear that our water supply is something that can be seriously affected by the impacts of climate change – something that colleagues on this side of the house have very much been interested in and indeed committed to doing something about for a very long time. What we are seeing are those hotter days – and more and more of them – and more droughts, which of course deplete our water supply. I was not living in Melbourne 15 to 16 years ago – I was trying to count back to where I was back then, and I think it was perhaps up in Queensland – but I do remember when the water supplies in our reservoirs were actually below 30 per cent of their capacity and the days when we had water restrictions on ordinary households, which preceded the Black Saturday bushfires. I think there are many people in this house that would remember the little stick-on timers that we had in our showers. I have to admit that my in-laws in Sydney have probably had that little timer attached to their shower, it feels, for the past 10 years and still use it – it still works – for those 3-minute showers. The shortages back then prompted the Brumby government to deconstruct the desalination plant in Wonthaggi, which was completed in 2012. Personally, I see the desal plant as a really good instrument in regard to water security here in Victoria, and while I do not think it gets a great deal of use at the moment, it is something that can certainly spring to life if we ever again – and hopefully we will not – see water levels as low as they were in 2007.

Of course we are still seeing today how climate change impacts the way in which we use water. We have been lucky so far that the Murray has seen very few shortfalls in the supply of water to our farmers and irrigators up in northern Victoria, but that risk is still both real and omnipresent. We know in Australia that our environment and rainfall are often at the mercy of our Pacific Ocean currents. So many times we have heard about, read about and seen in full force El Niño and now La Niña. We have just left the La Niña period, characterised by heavier rainfall and warmer currents. The Bureau of Meteorology has now declared an El Niño watch, which has the opposite impact of dryer weather and more likelihood of a drought condition that triggers a shortfall event. It is why the changes that were contained in the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act are necessary for the future of our water companies and their customers.

The framework we are talking about today really relates specifically to approvals for place of take. As part of the changes this framework improves Victoria’s approach to the management of approvals to take water and delivery rights in a declared system, and this affects a number of river systems here in Victoria, including the Murray, the Loddon and, surprisingly enough – I was actually surprised to read it – the Werribee River, which runs through my community in Wyndham. If folks here in the chamber have never actually gone down and seen the Werribee River and experienced the true beauty of that waterway system, it is indeed a place to go and spend time in and take your children to and visit and explore. It is very special indeed. In particular, however, the change is going to be really beneficial for folks who live in flood-affected communities. It should be made clear, though, that the changes in this bill will not actually go ahead and affect anyone’s water shares, but rather what they will mean is that water shares have greater certainty about their entitlements, especially when demand exceeds water flow. It means that when there is a shortfall the Minister for Water can introduce rules to protect existing water users’ rights, and that will be done by capping the extraction share, as well as facilitate the trading of extraction shares where there is a minimal chance of third-party impacts.

Under the current arrangements in the act the commencement date for this framework is 1 July this year. That is why it is important that this bill pass through the Parliament before the end of this month so that the extension can then come into effect. The biggest reason for the change is the impact of the floods that took place in October last year. Tragically, too many people here in Victoria were affected. Seeing the floods and the devastating effect they have on communities and families is felt as close to home as with my own husband, who was affected by three floods while growing up. Sadly, his parents did not have insurance and were forced to live in a flood-affected house for many, many years. He talks about mould up walls and all kinds of terrible stories. His family were very much affected by very big floods that took place in Sydney many years ago, and indeed having spent a lot of time up in Queensland seeing the devastating impact in cities like Brisbane being completely inundated by floodwater, it is a truly tragic thing and can have long-lasting impacts on people that experience it and are affected by it.

So indeed we do know that flood recovery can be a very long and a very difficult process, and the last thing that folks who have been affected by the floods need right now is to deal with an updated framework for how they use and rely on water. This was born out of the consultation process that restarted last year, and that is why consultation processes are so very important. The turnout for these sessions was low, and those who did turn up did tell us that they were not prepared for the changes to come into effect; they needed more time. And we get that – there are lots of Victorians doing it really tough at the moment, and that includes our farmers in areas like the Goulburn Valley and along the Murray Basin.

What is also really important is that by carving out this particular part of the act to delay commencement we are allowing the sections that relate to market transparency to proceed as planned to come into effect on 1 July this year. These provisions have been thoroughly consulted on and will improve the accountability and the fairness of the water market. It also means that the public can have access to this information about the largest holders of water. This is really important, because what we do not want is a situation like back in 2017 when the Commonwealth had its own – what can we say – ‘water-gate’ scandal, with $80 million in water entitlements being purchased from a company that not only happened to be formerly directed by the now Shadow Treasurer of the federal opposition but also happened to be a Liberal Party donor.

This is exactly why we are planning on going ahead this year with these provisions of the act, and that is a really good thing for Victorians, who expect our water supplies to be handled fairly and indeed need them to be handled fairly. This bill is one that is intended to make one change, but it will benefit Victorian users at a time when they really do need our help. By delaying the commencement of this framework we are giving them relief at a time when they are grappling with the impacts of last year’s floods and do not have the means to grapple with a really big change in the framework for how they use water. It means that farmers across Victoria, especially those out in rural and regional Victoria, benefit from an eased pathway to reform their water system, getting the new framework next year. I commend the bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:11): I rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. Disappointingly this, like the other bill being discussed in the Parliament this week, is a bill that is a hangover from the last Parliament. The last bill lapsed as the government did not prioritise regional communities, once again, and do the work to ensure this was addressed in the last Parliament as was promised. The bill seeks to amend the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 to extend the last possible date for a provision of that act to come into operation, to make minor amendments to proposed new part 4AA to be inserted into the Water Act 1989 by that act as to the regulation of places, rates and times of taking water and to make other minor and technical amendments; and to make minor related amendments to the Water Act 1989.

I do not oppose this bill, but I call for this government to work harder with rural and regional communities to preserve this finite but vital resource. This bill is characteristic of the Andrews government’s waste and mismanagement of projects. The bill joins a litany of delayed and derailed projects caused by this government’s inability to run a schedule. The very reason this bill is required to be discussed now is because the government ran out of the time that they set to be able to do the work they said they would do before the time ran out. So here we are extending the time. The commitment made, because of the Andrews government’s inability to conduct community consultations in an appropriate and timely manner, did not happen. This government did not commence a consultation process until December 2022 and seeks to blame the floods for the incompetent community consultation. I have always found it a bit lame, blame-shifting, and in this instance it is certainly lame to be blaming the floods.

The Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 received royal assent on Wednesday 3 November 2021, so why didn’t the community consultation commence on Monday 8 November 2021? Why did this government sit on its hands for over 12 months before commencing community consultation? Like so many pieces of legislation this government has introduced, they outline the purpose and then make the claim they will do the detail later. I find this process very concerning. The point of legislation is to have a structure in place to ensure functionality and to avoid unintended consequences, yet we are debating legislation today that does not have the detail worked through, so how can we as an opposition and as a community scrutinise the legislation effectively and properly? On principle the vision is fine, but the lack of detail is worrying.

We saw exactly the same with the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. The government introduced the bill and said they would work out the detail later, and now, less than six months from the start date of that legislation coming into effect, the organisations who will be left to deal with the practical situation on the street have no understanding of who will be responsible and how it will work. That to me does not reflect a government who is interested in caring. It demonstrates the aim of this government is to get headlines into the public eye so they look like they care and then not bother to get around to doing the work. It is the same with this bill. It is supposed to be implemented by July 2023, but they have not begun the work. They have not begun the consultation, so here we are extending the deadline to July 2024.

Community consultation is important, and it enables communities to not only voice their concerns but be involved in identifying both problems and solutions. When community consultations are conducted well, community members are empowered and communities are strengthened. We all know that community consultations are lengthy and that water is an issue that most people have an opinion on. We also know, in the words of Dorothea Mackellar, that our wide brown land is home to both droughts and flooding rains. So one may question: why did this government fail to commence the community consultation in a timely and efficient manner, knowing that circumstances beyond anyone’s control like a flood had the potential to delay the consultation process? Unfortunately this failure to consult in a timely manner is symptomatic of this government, a government that delays, denies and blames others for their mistakes and omissions. This is a government that simply cannot follow a schedule or a budget.

Unfortunately, bills lapsed are characteristic of this government. I have lost count of how many lapsed bills have been presented to the Parliament by this government. It is disrespectful to the Victorian people to behave in this manner, and the government needs to stop wasting parliamentary time and manage the agenda better. As I have said before, a failure to plan is a plan to fail. Unfortunately this seems to be the motto of this government. Victorians deserve so much better.

Water is the source of life. Without water, life simply ceases, and farmers know this very well. Water is the lifeblood of all our communities, both rural and urban, and it is due to the importance of this that stewardship of water must be prioritised. This bill recognises this and seeks to provide stakeholders with assurances of what will happen in times of shortfall.

By 2050 the world’s population will exceed 9 billion people. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations projects that world food demand may increase by 70 per cent by 2050. To put it another way, we have 7 per cent of the world’s crust that we can farm, that is arable. In the next 50 years we have a challenge in front of us. It is about 500 years since we started organised farming, where we did not hunt and gather but used fences and had crops and flocks. So in the last 500 years we produced a certain amount of food. In the next 50 years we have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years. That, by anyone’s imagination, is an incredible task in front of us. So to feed 9 billion people steps need to be taken to ensure there is food security. Food security is when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Ensuring reliable access to water for communities, agriculture and horticulture is one step in this direction.

During my Nuffield scholarship travels, when I studied food policy around the world, it was very evident and obvious that we had a major challenge in front of us with only 7 per cent of the earth being arable, that we had to find ways – and desperately have to find ways – to make sure we have suitable and available land for our crops and our stock. By 2050, as I have said, we will need to produce a huge amount of food, the same amount as we produced in the last 500 years. Demand will outstrip supply as we see more developing countries wanting food, good quality food. So it is pleasing today to see in reports that 1000 scientists have signed a petition to support meat production and the fact that they value and understand that it is important have meat in your diet, it is not bad for the environment and it is not bad for your health. Now, I will always value that people have the right to choose whatever they want to eat, but when they tell others they cannot do that I do not support it.

So you do not have to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that a global population exceeding 9 billion people, requiring 70 per cent more food on 7 per cent of the earth’s crust, poses some challenges. It will require innovation, it will require perseverance and it will require dedication. Fortunately these are attributes of the Victorian agricultural and horticultural communities. It is these talents that will be harnessed by this bill to ensure that water is used effectively and productively.

A sustainable and resilient Victoria needs agriculture and horticulture sectors that are strong and vibrant. For agriculture and horticulture to thrive, the right to farm needs to be protected and preserved. Farmers of all stripes, be they cattle producers or cereal growers, need assurances from all governments that their right to farm will continue without interference. The competition for precious resources will only continue to increase, and governments need to work with rural sectors to ensure that the food that will be required into the future will be able to be produced. This government must not let perfect be the enemy of good and must continue to strive to strike the balance needed to protect and preserve the right to farm.

Water is vital for the survival of humanity. This bill takes some positive steps towards ensuring the consistent management of this resource throughout Victoria. I do not oppose the bill but note that this is yet another example of yet another lapsed bill, something that is far too common in this place and emblematic of the Andrews government’s level of chaos and inability to follow through. It lacks detail, and that concerns me. This government’s arrogance is highlighted by their failure to commence the necessary community consultation in a timely and competent manner. This government needs to do better and be more proactive in its engagement with Victorians, not just those who reside in the metropolitan area.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (17:20): It gives me great pleasure today to rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill addresses a range of issues related to water delivery, market transparency and effective consultation with stakeholders. One of the key drivers of the bill is the gradual loss of capacity to the Barmah Choke, which is a narrow point in the Murray River that controls the flow of water downstream. This has resulted in water shortfalls that have affected many water users downstream of the choke. This bill also improves market transparency and ensures that the water market operates in a transparent and fair manner, as the member for Laverton spoke about previously. This will benefit farmers, irrigators, investors and the wider community. Finally, the bill seeks to extend the time for consultation with flood-affected water users in northern Victoria to ensure their views are taken into account when transitioning to the proposed changes.

The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action – known as DEECA – has been actively engaging with affected water users since the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 passed, and contrary to the sentiment of the previous speaker, the member for South-West Coast, it has been incredibly difficult for those people that this bill will affect to effectively engage in consultation in many ways – namely because they are rebuilding their communities, rebuilding their homes and rebuilding their lives after a horrible flood event, and my sympathy goes out to those communities. DEECA has been working in close collaboration with the three declared system rural water corporations – Goulburn–Murray Water, Lower Murray Water and Southern Rural Water – as well as their customer committees. This is to ensure that systems and processes are updated for them to manage their customers’ place-of-take approvals when the new framework comes into effect. DEECA has been proactively publishing information on the Victorian Water Register website to help water users understand and prepare for the changes. Additionally, several online webinars and face-to-face presentations have been conducted for stakeholders and agencies. Proposed conversion rules have been developed by DEECA in consultation with the rural water corporations, the consultative committee and water users affected by the changes. These rules are relevant to private diverters, whose existing extraction share will be distributed between multiple place-of-take approvals. A decision on these rules is expected prior to this bill passing Parliament so that affected water users have time to prepare and make arrangements if the new framework were to come into effect on 1 July 2023 as proposed.

As I spoke about earlier, it has been incredibly difficult for stakeholders and people in flood-affected areas to effectively engage with consultation on this bill. I myself know several families, including primary producers in regional and rural Victoria, and having had conversations with them over the last little period, I understand how incredibly difficult it has been for some of these communities. Indeed I wish them all the best in their efforts to rebuild their communities, rebuild their homes and in some cases rebuild their lives. This bill is being introduced in that vein to allow for time for consultation with those whose statutory approvals will be affected by the transition to the proposed part 4AA of the Water Act 1989. It is simply not fair to expect farmers in flood-affected areas of northern Victoria to participate in consultation about preventing shortfalls in the current circumstances. These Victorians have enough on their plate dealing with flood recovery, rebuilding their houses, dealing with insurance and repairing their farms. This government understands that this bill is incredibly important but now is not the time for effective consultation, so having that extended is entirely appropriate. This means that consultation needs to be extended to ensure the government gets this right. The delay of the default commencement date provides much-needed additional time for those people in those flood-affected areas and water users in those flood-affected areas in northern Victoria to consider and also to adjust to the new reforms. The additional time will also better manage technology risk inherent in updating the Victorian water register functionality to support the new place-of-take framework.

The proposed changes to correct technical matters in the amendment of the Water Act 1989 are not expected to have any impact on the cost of water which, given the cost-of-living pressures that exist at the moment both to family households and to small businesses, is an incredibly important aspect of what we are doing. The last thing that we want to do is to pass legislation that will make those cost-of-living pressures even more difficult than what they already are. What they do is simply provide for clearer and more certain rights to extract a share of the flow in the river when a rationing restriction is declared and ensure no unintended consequences to interstate water trade. As you can imagine, with a bill of this nature there has been extensive stakeholder consultation, and based on that extensive consultation for the amendment act prior to and during 2021 the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, DEECA, is confident there will be broad support for the clarifying amendments in this bill to correct technical matters in the amendment act to achieve the original intent of the water reforms before they commence this year, in 2023.

Feedback from the place-of-take consultative committee, which is comprised primarily of irrigator representatives, has been that it is a difficult time, obviously, for rural water users in northern Victoria, given the effects of flooding that we have seen up there, which I have spoken about previously. It has been a really difficult time for those communities in northern Victoria to engage and consider these reforms while they are still addressing that flood damage and recovery. The very low turnout for public engagement sessions in January 2023 has further underscored this capacity issue, and to go to some of the comments made by the member for South-West Coast, it is most certainly not that consultation has not been conducted throughout this process and for this bill; it is simply just a fact that those that are affected by this bill were unable to engage in that consultation because they are rebuilding their communities, rebuilding their businesses and rebuilding their lives. So to suggest that consultation has not been forthcoming, to suggest consultation has not occurred is nothing more than disingenuous. Both rural water authorities and the Victorian Farmers Federation have been consulted and are supportive of the policy intent of this bill. Given that the Victorian Farmers Federation is the industry body that covers a lot of these businesses that will be affected, I think having their support for these changes goes a long way. I commend the bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:30): I rise to make a contribution to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. Water and the management of water in my electorate is absolutely crucial and remains one of the highest priority items that people want addressed in this Parliament, particularly at the moment. When you live in a country area, you are subject to drought, you are subject to normal years when things are quite good and you are also subject to floods. I think all through that we have to look at all of the stakeholders along the river catchment system and storage facilities, or storage weirs and lakes, to make sure that we are doing the right thing by everybody to the best that we can.

We have got a bill here before us which is essentially extending a default start date by 12 months – that is all it is. The bill was introduced in 2021, and there was an end date for 1 July 2023. Probably in December 2022 the government started to do some consultation and realised this consultation is really on the back of the floods which just happened a few months before, so of course people are not in a position at that point. Now, we do know that in reality it is not going to be ready, so it does have to be extended. We do know that, but I think the government have really dropped the ball because they did not commence the consultation perhaps when they should have and then found out that something else had happened. Sometimes things do happen that we do not expect. That is why you have got to get on the job early to make sure that you have covered for all risks or unexpected things that happen.

I just want to quickly touch on this bill which amends two acts: the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 and the Water Act 1989 as well. Now I have got the water authorities, and for me I have Melbourne Water and Goulburn–Murray Water that particularly have big roles in my electorate. The roles of the water authorities particularly are about managing, protecting and delivering our water resources. We need to keep our rivers, dams and weirs healthy, and we need to maintain that for many reasons. So many people use the water and rely on it, but also in my area we do not just have water for usage, it is also very much a recreational element for boating, skiing and fishing. Lake Eildon is also involved in hydro-electricity, so electricity generation, and AGL actually use their entitlements typically to make the most of the high energy prices and not always at other times.

As we have heard, there were a number of different ways that the government went about consulting. They had several different committees in different communities – Northern Victoria, Macalister and Werribee. They are different areas with different landholders. They went with some public webinars as well, and I think Agriculture Victoria had a fairly wide net that they linked into.

But I want to have a look first of all at the second-reading speech, because the second-reading speech talks about delivery shortfalls, and it talks about shortfalls when river operators cannot deliver the water to water users, and this includes the irrigators who rely on it, and to the environment. Sometimes, particularly during hot weather, there is an increase in daily demand, or if we have had a long spell of hot weather the irrigators might be taking a little bit more. If an irrigator orders their water or takes up their entitlement and they are quite a way from the water source, well it does take time. If you are in Shepparton, for example, water released from Lake Eildon takes several days, 2½ to three days, to get to Shepparton, so it is not right there when you need it. If you need it in Mildura, well that is a lot further as well.

We talk a bit about, in the second-reading speech, the delivery of shortfalls when water is particularly tight. The only mention of the floods is about the consultation and that emergency event and having to push that out a little bit. There is no mention at all of flood mitigation, and those in my community are particularly concerned about flood mitigation, because all the operating rules tend to be around the water delivery and from what I understand were put together during times of drought, when we had that particularly devastating millennium drought.

I want to talk just for the rest of my contribution about the floods and what happened. The closer you are to Lake Eildon, the quicker you feel impacts of water releases. Communities downstream will feel it at particular minutes, hours and – depending – days later. The rivers were full. Goulburn and its tributaries – the Yea River, the Acheron, King Parrot Creek – were all full, and it was raining a lot. People were very concerned because Lake Eildon was also full, and they were going to have to release water. So then what happened is Goulburn–Murray Water did release water, but the way they did that was exceptionally questionable. On the day they had informed the local SES, who knew that water was going to be released and knew that we were expecting some floods. The SES wanted to be on top of it, so they were informed at 5 pm that the current outflows, the releases, were 12,400 megalitres and that they would remain so. That same Thursday at 11 pm – we are talking 5 pm to 11 pm, not a lot later on – from 12,400 they were increased to 38,000 megalitres. That is extraordinary.

If you were in Thornton, you woke up to alarms at 2 am to find you were flooded. This happened in the dark. This was exceptionally devastating and stressful for people. The communities in Thornton pulled together so well. Their community effort sandbagging to stop a bit of the breakaway areas, to prevent the town from being flooded, was extraordinary, and they only just made it. If the water had come up another centimetre or two, Thornton would have been under water. The drains in the area are very ordinary.

If you head down to Acheron, a couple of hours later – maybe only an hour later – we saw the road leading to the bridge on the Alexandra side completely washed away, and with that the river then detoured. What was the old historic breakaway bridge over the river is now over all the gravel, because the banks and the sand all washed away under the bridge. Now the river has diverted around it, and there is this gaping hole the width of the chamber that has broken the communities apart in Acheron.

In Whanregarwen people woke up at 4 o’clock and rang all the neighbours to say, ‘Hey, listen, we’re all flooded.’ This is extraordinary, and you cannot do much when you are in the dark at 4 am, 4:30 am, when you are worried about cattle. I know that there were instances where a group of farmers got together to help each other where cattle were stranded. There were four boats, there were people in each boat and there was somebody actually standing in the floodwaters where they swam the cattle across to get them to safety so that they could then be moved to higher ground.

In Yea it came up at the crack of dawn. People were waking to find their homes were flooded. Roads were cut off, with no warning that this was going to happen. People said to me that they have never seen the waters come up so quickly. Why was it flooding so quickly? Why were they rising so quickly? Then we found out why – because we had an increase from 12,400 megalitres to 38,000 in the space of a few hours, overnight, and this has just been devastating.

We have a whole lot of stresses at the moment. Lake Eildon today is at 93.17 per cent of capacity. The winter recharge in a typical year is 30 per cent, so they know that there is going to be well in excess of what the lake is able to cope with, and that water needs to be released. Goulburn–Murray Water keep saying, ‘Yes, monitoring, monitoring, monitoring.’ They are releasing 4000 megalitres a day at the moment. It does jump around a bit, and they have said that they are going to release between 1000 and 6000 to the end of May, because they have got filling targets. They want Lake Eildon full at 1 October, and I think they have extended that to the end of October, so it is 1 November.

People are very worried, and they want the minister to intervene, because it is unprecedented that the lake is at 94 per cent at this time of year. Usually it is much lower, around 70 per cent, because we have the irrigation season. We are coming to the end of the irrigation season in another couple of weeks. Usually it is lower because people have taken out their entitlements. They have not taken them out. That is part of the carryover water that is still there. I know that Goulburn–Murray Water and the minister’s office have worked with a handful of people in the area, but they absolutely want the minister to intervene to help them with the operating rules around Lake Eildon.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (17:40): It is with some pleasure that I rise this evening to make a contribution on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I do so with some understanding of course of the Australian environment and the circumstances of the Murray–Darling region. I am sure people would be aware that the Murray–Darling region spans some millions, in fact probably tens of millions, of square kilometres, an area from southern central Queensland out the back of Bourke, as they literally say, down through New South Wales and into the Murray. And then of course the Murray River extends from the Victoria–New South Wales border all of the way through to South Australia. That whole region, those tens of millions of square kilometres, is a very significant economic driver for Australia, generating billions of dollars of agricultural output and supporting many, many millions of people living in that area. In fact it has been said by eminent water scientists that that irrigation system that sits alongside so much of the Murray–Darling region is one of the biggest man-made irrigation systems that we will find anywhere globally. That irrigation network has provided for the people of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia indeed for a very, very long time, but water scientists and in fact the scientific community started noticing changes in our environment.

I first became aware of the concept of climate change I think in my early secondary schooling, which was in the late 1980s. Of course, scientists had been identifying climate change some 15 or 20 years prior to that. The concept of climate change means that in effect there is more heat energy in the environment, and what that ultimately leads to is a changed climate. That changed climate can see periods of more intense rainfall. It can see periods of extended wet and it can see periods of extended dry. The national body that regulates the Murray–Darling is the Murray–Darling Basin Authority. It is in effect an umbrella entity with representation from all of the states, and it plays a significant and important role. But all of us who are interested in the politics of water and indeed the politics of climate change are aware that this is a very, very contested space.

The reason why I bring these things to the table is that anything that any of the state governments do or indeed anything that the federal government does needs to be really understood – firstly, the consequences of climate change, and secondly, the number of families, the agricultural output, the billions of dollars of revenue that it generates, but also of course the consequences of a changing climate and what that actually might mean.

I have had the fortune, in a previous working life, of having the opportunity to interact with and to learn the work of people working for water authorities such as the Goulburn–Murray Water Authority, Southern Rural Water and Lower Murray Water. I became aware through that period of my working life of the great challenges that exist with our agricultural system and indeed the channels, the weirs, the locks and the other things that were put in place to help support the growth of agriculture in that region; what the science of climate change would mean and the consequences of that with respect to often less water in the system and at other times a great deal more water in the system; and in fact the ultimate need to be custodians and guardians of our environment, because if we do not protect the environment, then the consequence of course is that that very, very important wealth-generating sector of the economy, the agriculture sector, pays the ultimate cost. But we also have in so many ways many thousands – tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands – of people who live in the Murray–Darling Basin who live with the real risks of particularly substantial volumes of more water in the environment from time to time as a consequence of climate change.

I cannot think of an area of public policy, perhaps outside of taxation, that has been so hotly contested literally since Federation as water, particularly as each of those states and the communities that reside in each of those states contest for their own interest in how we manage environmental water, how we manage agricultural water and how we manage climate change. It is not easy public policy, and people of course are ultimately very exercised by its importance from any number of different perspectives. This bill I think is important; it kind of builds on the work that we have been doing.

We saw late last year, over a number of months, the floods and what that meant for all of those Victorian and South Australian communities. I can vividly recall talking to my uncle and aunty, who are farmers. They have a farm in the Kerang area, and they can recall months of blue sky and watching the water come ever increasingly towards them as the headwaters burst their banks and water came down that system. That is the reality of living in that very flat country through northern Victoria, and that was not the first time that their property was at risk of inundation. In fact in the last 20 years their property or parts of their property have been inundated three times, and in the 30 or 40 years that they owned the property prior to that there were no floods, so we have got a very different set of circumstances now.

In that period where they had those three inundation occasions, they also experienced a period of drought that went for about five or six years. It is remarkable that the climate has changed so much, and that has had a consequence on their property in real, practical terms. So this bill is important. We need to make sure we provide adequate time for communities to be consulted. I think this bill does do that. I think there is going to be further work required, and I suspect that water policy and the Murray–Darling issues are going to continue to be hotly contested across our country.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:50): Whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over. So said Mark Twain, just to reinforce the points made by the member for South Barwon in terms of the contested and controversial nature of water policy. Indeed, even to that point, the quote itself is contested, and I am indebted to my colleague, the former member for Euroa, who pointed out to me that it was not in fact Mark Twain that said that, but no-one knows who did, so we will stick with Mark Twain for the moment. But it is absolutely a truism that water is an issue to argue and fight over, and nowhere more so than in our great nation, which is globally the driest inhabited continent on the planet. It therefore becomes a very contested issue.

This legislation, the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, is yet another piece in the puzzle of water policy to try and deal with those issues of scarcity and who should get the water that everybody wants. As previous speakers have indicated, this is effectively a revisitation, an opportunity for the government to update the introduction of place-of-take approvals and delay that for some time to further discuss with the community, particularly with the irrigation community and particularly with the irrigation community downstream of the Barmah Choke on the Murray system. My colleague the Shadow Minister for Water, the member for Ovens Valley, explained very well what this is really all about, because while the place-of-take approvals will apply to all declared water systems – and that includes the north predominantly but also the Werribee system and the Thomson Macalister system in my electorate, in my part of the world and that of the member for Gippsland East – it really is about the Murray system, where scarcity is the biggest issue.

The member for Ovens Valley indicated the physical challenge of the Barmah Choke and the fact that – it was a surprise to me when he was talking about it earlier today – that is now down to 7000 megalitres a day capacity. When I was working in the industry some 10 years or so ago I think the figure was about 10,000 megalitres a day. So it is a constraint and it is a significant one. I am reminded whenever I speak of the Barmah Choke or hear people talking of the Barmah Choke, that when I was CEO of the National Irrigators Council we took a then shadow minister on a flight over the Barmah Choke to try and explain what it was, how it worked and why it was a constraint on getting water downstream on the Murray. Once it had been explained and shown to this then shadow minister, he was somewhat disappointed because he had the simple idea in his head that he would just get a very big D9 bulldozer, push a hole through and get more water through. But it is not that simple. So we do need this sort of legislation to come in and ensure that if we do face significant challenges with delivery of water down the Murray system in future everyone gets a fair crack at it, particularly, as the government’s information to the sector has indicated, to ensure that existing water users’ entitlements are protected.

That term itself reminds me of the strange nature of water policy around the world. Generally speaking I think Australia has some of the most advanced water policy when it comes to trade in particular, the allocation of rights and the like, perhaps reflecting our shortage or scarcity of water. I am reminded of the US where I understand in many states allocations are actually based on historic licence approvals, so the longer you have had a licence, you will get water before anyone. In some cases literally you will get 100 per cent of your water before someone else gets theirs. So if you got your licence in 1910, you will get all of your water before a person who got their licence in 1945 gets theirs.

Indeed, literally right now, as we are speaking, the Biden administration is facing a difficult decision on the Colorado River, which is severely overallocated – used by seven states, and a further two in Mexico – and they are actually having to look at how they are going to allocate that. California is one that is saying, ‘We are the original user, we’ve had the rights historically, so we should be looked after first.’ But what the Biden administration is looking at is ensuring that there is an even cut across the board if there has to be a cut – effectively what we are talking about here, in making sure that that place of take occurs fairly across the board. I should add the qualification that we do not yet know exactly how this will work. This is the framework being set up, and I do hope that through the consultation period we get to a situation where the practical process for allocation in the event of shortages and caps is done to – I will not say to the agreement of all, because having started with the way I started, we know that that is not necessarily a likelihood – get a fair process that most people will understand and will accept.

I also want to highlight, as I said, that this will apply to all declared water systems. My interest particularly of course is the Thomson–Macalister, the home of the Macalister irrigation district, which I share with the member for Gippsland East. I have long argued that we should be trying to expand the MID. This is certainly some of Victoria’s premier irrigation district. It is virtually the only major irrigation district in southern Victoria, and it is historically a very safe area in terms of water supply. We did go two years in a row of no spill just a couple of years ago, but historically it has been very safe. The reason I have been wanting to expand it is that in a changing climate there is great opportunity for us in Gippsland – where we do have a wetter climate and we have more reliable rainfall both in South Gippsland and on the ranges feeding into the MID – to actually expand irrigated agriculture.

I have been campaigning for that for some time, and in particular there is an unallocated amount of water on the Latrobe system known as the 3/4 bench water, which was originally set aside for power station development in the Latrobe Valley but is now no longer needed – clearly we are not going to be building a new coal-fired power station. The government last year announced that as part of the central region SWS, the sustainable water strategy, of that 25 gigalitres, 9 will be set aside for potential future energy use – and probably reluctantly I will agree and acknowledge that is probably a wise thing to do and a conservative thing to do – but 16 gigs of that water will be indeed allocated. It literally sits in Blue Rock Dam at the moment, not used, and is to be allocated on the basis of a three-way split between the environment, in particular the Latrobe and Lower Latrobe wetlands and therefore the Gippsland Lakes; the traditional owners – and the Gunnai/Kurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation will have a bit to say about that; and irrigators.

It is important of course that we protect the Gippsland Lakes and that we ensure that the Lower Latrobe wetlands are utilised. I was actually in the Lower Latrobe wetlands on Friday morning, not shooting ducks myself but with duck shooters, having a look and hoping and praying that that is not the last opportunity this year they get. But they do fantastic work, I might add, on the Lower Latrobe wetlands, particularly the Heart Morass, where it has actually been duck hunters that have done the environmental work there, a fact that is not recognised by those who would have the season shut down.

I do think we can do a better job of allocating water to irrigators. There is great opportunity for us to expand the irrigation area, whether in the MID directly or along the Latrobe. I know Southern Rural Water has done some great work on options for that to occur, and we now have a decision from the government that there will be some water. If there is a three-way split of that 16 gigs – whatever that is, 5 and a bit gigs each – I do not think that is potentially enough; I think we could potentially do more for irrigation and look at the opportunities to actually get some real economic value. In an area that is going through an industry transition, we need long-term, secure jobs.

I will very briefly mention the issue of mine rehabilitation, which is intimately tied up with water allocation in the Latrobe system as well. I encourage the government to get on with the work on mine rehabilitation. It has been some time now since we established the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority. I know there is an environment effects statement process underway at the moment with Hazelwood and the mine there, but it is going to come to a head over the next few years, and we do need some direction. This legislation, as I said, should be a good thing. We look forward to seeing the details when they are developed. I also look forward to hearing from my colleague the member for Mildura, who has a much greater say in this, later in the debate.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (18:01): Thank you, Acting Speaker Addison. I am delighted to rise to speak and see you in the chair. I am really happy to stand to speak about the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. Before I go into the bill and why it is so fabulous I would just like to respond to some of the contributions from those opposite. The member for South-West Coast referred to this government as city centric. As ever I would like to remind those on the other side that this government has 18 regional members. The Liberal Party has as many Davids as it does regional MPs in this chamber. It is an extraordinary position that we are in that so many of us stand to represent regional Victoria. We understand the regions. We live in our electorates and really understand the needs of regional people.

This bill, as many people have said, provides some minor but very important technical amendments. It seeks to clarify the circumstances in which place-of-take approvals cease to remain in effect, allows prescribed fees for applications for these approvals, clarifies the power to trade water allocations and, really importantly, delays the default commencement of the new framework.

Before I really go into it, the member for South-West Coast was calling on this government to act in the interests of regional people, so I thought I might take a moment to look at water policy and how much Labor governments have driven water policy in this country. The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission was established in 1905. That was the original body, but it took a Labor government under Cain in 1984 to establish the Rural Water Commission. It was the Cain government that went to work and created the Water Act 1989. So it has been a piece of work that has been very, very close to those on this side of the house for many years. In the early 2000s Minister Thwaites in a Labor government established the sustainable water strategies and created this framework for these water strategies across Victoria, and indeed that work continues. It was only last year that those sustainable water strategies were reviewed, and last year the Central and Gippsland Region Sustainable Water Strategy was released.

I would like to ask for the indulgence of the house to acknowledge the wonderful chair of the Central and Gippsland Region Sustainable Water Strategy consultative committee, Christine Forster AM. Christine has spent a lifetime in water resource management, and in 1996 she was awarded the inaugural MacLean-Iedema Award for services to the irrigation industry. She was awarded that by Irrigation Australia. She was awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 2006 for her services to water management. She was awarded a 20-year service award for her work with the catchment management authorities councils, and she is also a fantastic mum. I really want to acknowledge her hard work.

It is interesting; the member for South Barwon talks about his long memory of in the 1980s first hearing about sustainability and water management, and certainly for me as a child it was dinner-table conversation. I was actually laughing the other day – we spent our school holidays being taken to irrigation projects. I can remember going to the hydro-electric system with my mum to have a look. Water management and water resources have been in my family and in dinner-table discussions for a long time, so I just really want to acknowledge her. I would also like to acknowledge the former Minister for Water, Minister Neville. She was instrumental in bringing about the 2021 bill. She announced in 2019 the very strong need for the bill, and of course that was debated and passed – the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021.

The Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to clarify some of the provisions related to the place-of-take approvals. While we endeavour to take any piece of legislation forward in its perfect form, I think a really responsible government needs to continually address legislation, look deeply and look where there can be reforms and changes. But of course the motivation for this bill and this change was really the pretty awful circumstances that were faced by farmers through the flood period. Of course we are aware of how much that has impacted farmers and communities, and so this bill really is about giving a bit more time for those people that will be affected by the bill to consult and to consider some of the elements of that bill.

The Murray–Darling Basin is an incredibly important area too. It covers 14 per cent of Australia, and it is home to about 2 million people. The basin’s agricultural output accounts for about 40 per cent of Australia’s agricultural output, so this is an incredibly important area to us. And of course agriculture generally is such a huge contributor to this state, both in an economic sense and really, you know, in all that it does to feed us and keep us all healthy. I am delighted to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture and I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Agriculture in the other place, because I know of her commitment to this industry and supporting this industry.

On Saturday night I was really delighted to go to the Ausveg Vic dinner, which celebrates horticulture in Victoria, and you know, we are really punching above our weight. I think nearly half of Australia’s exported vegetables come from Victoria, so we are really punching above our weight in that regard. For those on this side of the house, many of us live in regional areas. I certainly ran and managed my family farm for 10 years, and it was through that millennial drought, I have to say. We came back to the farm in 2001, and it was pretty tough times while we were there. So I think we can safely say that people on this side of the house are very, very aware of the needs of regional communities and the absolute importance of agriculture to our economy and to our communities. It really is a powerhouse. I think it is a $3.2 billion industry, so very important to all of us.

But really in commending this bill I would like to acknowledge our current Minister for Water in the other house, the Honourable Harriet Shing. One of the things that I notice with the minister – along with my colleague Acting Speaker Addison we have attended the water bodies locally – one of the things she has always been really keen to grab is that moment, as she describes it, of ‘women in water’. She celebrates women in water. I think that is a wonderful thing – her passion for water. We were talking earlier. I know I come from a passionate woman in water – and other people do not understand, but when they are mad for it, they are mad for it. Our current minister is definitely mad for it, as is my mother, and so I really want to acknowledge all that they have done to look after our waterways. As the member for South Barwon pointed out, they really are the lifelines for so much industry and for all of our communities. I am delighted that successive Labor governments have seen fit to really shine a light on the water sector and make sure that it is distributed fairly and evenly but also have the foresight. We have stood with people through drought; we have stood with people through floods – this government will stand by the agricultural community, and this bill is another way of giving them surety that we stand with them.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (18:11): I am enthusiastic to speak today to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, and I am hoping that this will introduce a framework to regulate the place, rate and time of take, which should allow for better management of the system – should. Being from an irrigated horticultural background, however, one might say I am less enthusiastic to add more regulation to water and the system, but it could actually be a good news story for those of us downstream of the choke, because the system can be hard to manage for those that rely on water to produce food, particularly in drier times. And it does clarify some sections of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021, which will essentially protect the existing rights of the Victorian water user and provide a bit more flexibility to manage their own delivery. But the fear of shortfalls – and we know this; this is topical day in, day out in the great north-west of the state – is very, very real. We know that during dry periods our irrigators and those that are producing food are the first ones to pay the price for any shortfall that there might be, and it is paying the price quite literally – sometimes north of $1000 a megalitre – when they are not getting the allocations that are required to produce the crops. Without the water, obviously, they cannot produce the crops, and the flow-on effects from that can be quite devastating. It is a very high price to make sure that crops are watered.

To this point, shortfalls have been rare, but the risk does beg the question of whether or not water should be a commodity like it is in the first place. For those of us in irrigated horticulture, we would say no, it should not have been. Food producers will tell you – me being one of them, and coming from an area where that is our main industry – that water should never have been unbundled. It is an egg we are not going to unscramble, but unbundling water from land was devastating, absolutely devastating, and we are now having to amend the water and catchment legislation to try to unscramble that egg as much as we can.

It is the opinion of those that I speak with – and again, I speak to food producers, growers and irrigators every day – that you should have to be using that water for irrigation, not an investor and not a super fund. You should have to be a food and/or fibre producer to be able to access that water, particularly in dry times, and those that are holding water should be encouraged and perhaps incentivised to put it on the market. And we include the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the recreational water holders. That should all go on the market in dry times, because when the weather is making circumstances tough the last thing that farmers and food producers need is to be paying exorbitant expenses for something that is essential, that is our lifeblood – and that is water. It should not be a commodity for super fund investors to make millions and millions of dollars. There is nothing more frustrating for food producers in our part of the world than to see the river full and flowing past us not being able to be taken, not being able to water the crops – going past us to South Australia and then having big pumps being brought in to forest floors to water them in a cycle of weather that is naturally dry. And for millions of years they have been naturally dry, so why on earth would you be watering them artificially? Meanwhile Donny down the road is paying $1800 a megalitre and having to buy sometimes 25 megalitres. It just does not make sense. So I absolutely understand the angst that is coming from these food producers.

There are a couple of other levers that could be pulled. The member for Narracan pointed out earlier, when speaking about the government business program this week, that it perhaps does not go far enough. There are some other levers that could be pulled, particularly with our environmental water holders. The plan has left some of these lakes – and I am not talking about the large lakes like Lake Boga et cetera. We are talking about the small lakes: Lake Powell, Lake Carpul, Lake Poomah on occasion and Heywood Lake, which has got water in it now for the first time in 20 years. Environmental water – not only could they be storing water after a flood event, which they are now, but couldn’t that then be redelivered? The environmental water holder is another irrigator essentially. When it comes down to it it is another irrigator. The same rules do not apply to an environmental water holder, but they are another irrigator. We could tick a couple of boxes by allowing environmental water to go into those smaller lakes, bringing them back to life and feeding the wildlife that lives there now. When it goes dry it disappears. The kangaroos at the moment look like caricatures of themselves. They are seven foot tall and they are built and quite scary. But in dry times when the lakes are empty they are either not there or they are emaciated and sick looking. The birds go away. There could be things that we could pull and do to make sure that environmental water is being used in a way that serves everybody, not just the environment, so it is then redelivered if it is needed to farmers that are close by. It is not that hard. It seems a bit too much like common sense perhaps.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Jade BENHAM: I know. Stop it, we cannot have common sense. Then we get onto the subject of course of buybacks, which are on the table at the moment. When we mention the word ‘buybacks’ in my electorate and anywhere along the Murray River, people shudder, and for good reason. There are very real-life examples of what water buybacks have done to small communities. It has decimated them. Tresco is a perfect example. It is not in my electorate, but my father grew up in Tresco. At the time it was a thriving little town just outside of Lake Boga. My uncle still lives there. But when water buybacks come along and farmers are desperate, then of course they are going to sell off their water. It has left Tresco in a situation where people are just walking off the land. It looks like a Third World country. I will be honest, it is awful. So when we talk about buybacks, we really have to be aggressive in our opposition to water buybacks.

All of these things are on our mind – a food producer’s mind or a fibre producer’s mind or those running cattle. Again we need what everyone needs – water. Like I said, it is the lifeblood of human society. It should never have been made a commodity, as it is, available for those to trade, to make millions and millions of dollars in profit. It just should not have been. There is nothing more frustrating and nothing that makes farmers angrier than super funds, overseas companies or big corporate farming companies that may or may not have land. Some have land – yes, that is fine – but some are holding it to make profit upon profit, and there is nothing more frustrating for farmers. So the fact that we have water that was unbundled from land in the first place was a huge mistake. We do not mind saying that now. It was long before my time, but again it is an egg that we are unlikely to be able to unscramble. By making amendments, and I think this is a good one, it could have very positive outcomes in the immediate future.

I do think there is a lot more work that needs to be done as far as water legislation goes. Like the member for Eureka said earlier, there are a lot of women in the water business and they are into it. It is very technical, and I have not got into the technicalities of the water industry today, but it is something I am quite passionate about. It can be quite divisive. In my part of the world as well, where you have food producers with one very strong opinion and environmental warriors with another, I think they could be married up much closer than they are, like I said before, using environmental water to feed the lakes, to feed the tributaries, to help the environment along and to then have it redelivered to irrigators should it need to be.

For now, though, this bill will allow those who are still harvesting – and there are people still harvesting nuts and still picking grapes, which is much longer than we would have liked it to be or should have been – to actually be consulted properly, and I do encourage everyone that is affected by this to take part in the consultation period ready for 1 July next year.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (18:21): Today I rise to contribute to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill clarifies some parts of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 and will allow for the implementation of a new means of regulating our water system, the place-of-take approvals framework. It protects our consumers and our waterways, and it ensures water supply in Victorian declared water systems for many years to come, and that is exactly what we want to do: shore up the system. The bill allows us to engage with flood-affected farmers, allowing them more say in how they manage their own water delivery, and it will make water delivery rights clear in the event of a delivery shortfall.

Just picking up on a point that the member for Mildura raised about trying to transfer or transmit water to other locations, I vaguely remember that when the north–south pipeline was a thing for moving water from one part of the state to another the farmers objected to that quite vigorously. While I accept the principle of shifting water around, it is okay if it suits the farmers, but when it does not suit the farmers they do object strongly.

As Victoria’s population is growing rapidly in the mighty Melton electorate, I am very lucky to meet many individuals and families who have moved from interstate and overseas and have decided to make the district their new home, which is great. That will continue to happen, as it is projected that by 2050, 450,000 people are going to be in the electorate of Melton. Water is a big issue for us in that electorate. The bill also makes amendments to the Water Act 1989, which was a glorious year because the mighty Hawthorn Hawks won the premiership, so that was fantastic. It was a good year to amend the Water Act.

The water supplier for my electorate is Greater Western Water. They cover almost 1.3 million residential and business customers in a region that is booming, as I said, with the population to grow to 200,000 by 2030 and to 450,000 by 2050. I have a very good working relationship with Greater Western Water, and I have found them to be very responsive to their customers, which is terrific. It was only a few years ago that I had to help out Exford Primary School. In the first few months after I was elected in 2018 I found out that Exford Primary School did not have mains-connected water and did not have sewage connected – a school that is in the metropolitan region. I was quite shocked at this. We managed to get some funding of $2.4 million to make sure that Exford Primary School was connected to mains water and to sewerage. Let me tell you, it was life changing for that school and that school community. I remember visiting the school and the smell of the septic tank and the kids having to drink bottled water because they could not drink the tank water. It was amazing. Again I have got to say, it was life changing for that school community. It is fantastic to go back there every time and they still recognise that outcome. I did approach Greater Western Water obviously and raised my concerns about that, and again they were forthcoming. Obviously it was about who was going to fund it, and I am pleased to say that the state put up the money to fund that change. Not only did they get the water and the sewerage but it came with replacing relocatable buildings with more permanent classrooms, so there was a big upgrade to that school off the back of the water connection.

The ongoing effects of the 2022 floods are still being felt across our state. Major rivers flooded their banks, inundating thousands of homes and businesses, and we have all seen that in the news reports and things like that. Of course, as an ongoing outcome of that, some locations around the state had to have temporary villages made, such as what happened in Rochester and the temporary village of Elmore. We have all been through some of these tragic circumstances over the last four years – all these flooding events. We will know someone or will have family members or will have some people within our electorates that were affected.

I just want to take a bit of time to acknowledge the work and the tenure of the emergency management commissioner, Andrew Crisp, who has recently announced his retirement at the conclusion of his five-year term. Since his appointment in 2018, he has provided exceptional leadership and a calm, familiar face for Victorians during some of the most significant emergencies the state has faced, which included things like the 2019–20 fires, the COVID-19 pandemic response, the June 2021 storm event and of course the October 2022 flood event. Prior to his taking up the commissioner role at Emergency Management Victoria, he served his distinguished career – a 40-year career – with the Victoria Police, and his leadership has been instrumental in leading the establishment of a permanent, 24/7 workforce for the State Control Centre and the establishment of Emergency Recovery Victoria and ongoing work to reform the operating model and legislative framework for managing emergencies. His face was on our TVs daily through these disasters that we have had, and as I say, in more recent times with the floods that occurred in the last quarter of last year. I know I speak for my electorate – the electorate of Melton – when I say thank you to the commissioner for his service, and I wish him well in his retirement. But I take this opportunity to remind the house that I tried to retire once, and I just hope that Commissioner Crisp has a longer retirement than what I did. Hopefully he will enjoy longer than three months in retirement.

As well as floods, which happened last year, Victoria has experienced several significant droughts in recent times, leading to a greater focus on water conservation and management. As we know, drought can have significant and wideranging effects obviously on our water supply, reducing the amount of water availability and also affecting the quality of the water supply. Obviously this causes issues with consumers but we also have to think about the impacts environmentally and on the water system itself. I hope that most of us here understand that water is essential to our life, and protecting the health of the water supply is essential to making sure that our future generations will have safe and reliable water access. Clearly there is still a long way to go with some industries in regard to protecting our waterways – of just not spilling stuff into our waterways and polluting them. Again, I would ask that the regulator regulate firmly when that does occur to protect those waterways and how important this commodity is for all of us.

A shortfall happens when there obviously is not enough water in the system to meet demand at a time and place that a water user wants it. This might happen because of increased demand or because the distance between the dams and the water users means that the water cannot get to the user in time. The risk of this happening is obviously uncommon but it is increasing, in particular in the Lower Murray area. All of these floods and droughts are increasing because of climate change, and we cannot ignore that fact. Of course, climate change is real. It is an undeniable threat to our planet, and Victoria was actually one of the first jurisdictions in the world to legislate net zero greenhouse gas emissions with the Climate Change Act 2017.

Just over the weekend, I was down at Pykes Creek reservoir at Myrniong, just across the way in the electorate of Eureka, and the Women in Rescue SES initiative was on, which saw females at VICSES and volunteers from across the western region at a targeted training event designed by women for women, aimed at helping to celebrate women in emergency operations. I was down there for a few hours watching their exercise and their scenario training in regard to rescuing someone that went into the water in the lake and also someone that was lost in the vicinity of that reservoir there. Their expertise and professionalism were fantastic, and I just want to extend my gratitude for the work that they do. It is fantastic to see now that female VICSES volunteers are currently around 35 per cent of all volunteers. I think that is a fantastic percentage, but of course we need more, and we encourage more to join. I just want to extend my congratulations and thanks to Jane Patton for organising that event and stress how important that event is. Again, it was all premised on a massive waterway and someone being lost in the water, and it was great to see those women in action.

This is a really important bill. Even though it has been alluded to that there are only some minor changes, they are very important changes. As I say, water is so important in our lives in every which way, so I commend the bill to the house.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (18:31): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this amendment. Even though I am the member for Melbourne I grew up in Mildura just a stone’s throw from the Murray River, so I am intimately aware of the impact on communities and the environment that water mismanagement has. My entire childhood until I moved to Melbourne to go to university was spent in that river, around that river, and I am very intimately connected, I feel in my soul, with that river.

I want to begin today by stating that the Greens support the amendment, which delays the implementation of the place-of-take approvals in recognition of the huge impact of the recent floods in Victoria. I also want to start by acknowledging the incredible resilience of our Victorian communities in the face particularly of the floods last year, in 2022. We know that recovery of homes, livelihoods and lives in so many areas is still ongoing, and those communities do need ongoing support.

We also know, as others have mentioned, that flooding disasters are increasingly occurring on a national and international scale. In 2022 alone we experienced a record five major floods across this country, claiming a total of 38 lives, destroying precious ecosystems and of course causing the death of countless animals as well. If it was not already obvious to governments here and around the world, 2022 is yet another reminder that we simply cannot ignore the role of climate change as a driver of these natural disasters on our planet. And of course we must start to think really carefully about planning for a future in which these kinds of disasters become more frequent and where a changing climate will unfortunately be our reality, and we must think not just about the impact on human lives and how we organise society but also about the impacts on ecosystems, which ultimately are the things that give us life.

While this bill in part delays the implementation of the revised water licence framework – I think I spoke on the bill in the last term around the water licence framework – it also legislates a series of technical changes to assist the functioning of the water licences. On this I would like to speak briefly on the crisis of mismanagement of water in our rivers. I have to say it is a little confusing sitting here and hearing both sides of the chamber, particularly Labor and the Nationals, get up and talk about how water is life and water is essential to us while governments of both persuasions have presided over such incredible mismanagement of water and still to this day are making decisions that are destroying our rivers. If we genuinely believe that we need healthy rivers and healthy water systems to sustain our lives, it is quite confusing then to see governments continue to make decisions that destroy those river systems.

The Greens have long been clear that decades of corruption, mismanagement and poor decision-making have left our waterways in crisis, driven particularly by vested interests and governments giving in to vested interests when it comes to water. Technical changes and revised frameworks – I mean, fine – are really not even scratching at the surface of the crisis that we are facing. We need to make sure that governments really look at the problems that we are facing and do so much more to protect water as the life-giving source that it is. Ultimately rivers have become an extension of our larger economic market and the problems that come with that. As others have mentioned, water is treated like shares to be bought and sold, shipped off in huge quantities to the highest bidder, and really there is only an afterthought to the environment, let alone the significance of water to our First Peoples.

These things come last. Successive governments of both persuasions seem to be on a unity ticket of prioritising corporations, large corporate irrigators and vested interests before anything else is even considered. But the environment cannot just be an afterthought. It is not something that is separate to us. Actually making the ecosystem function and work and stay healthy is what we need to ensure healthy rivers, and everything else flows from that. We cannot have healthy farming and we cannot have healthy industry unless we actually have the water there, and that comes from a healthy ecosystem. But it seems like corporations have managed to convince governments that that is not the case, that they come first and everything else comes last. It is simply the wrong way around.

The business-as-usual approach that we have now is just not working, and I think we can all see that. I mean, we have all seen the incredible fish kills that happen year on year. We are seeing signals being given to us year after year that it is not working, and yet governments keep doing the same thing. We have allowed these corporate interests, these vested interests, to get in the ear of government. They have given in and marketised and disrupted river systems. Water is moved around completely out of sync with the natural ecosystem. The dramatic consequences of this are just responded to reactively. We see government plugging holes. Instead of seeing the system as a whole we see them making technical changes, trying to fix little issues as they come up. But this approach – Labor’s approach right now – to a marketised river system is just simply at odds with the environmental and cultural values that our river systems and water systems provide. We need a holistic approach to changing it. If we do not put the rivers’ whole ecosystem first, it is simply a scientific fact that there will not be a resource left for us to use as humans at all. We cannot just take a selective approach to the measures through which to ensure river health.

For too long the government has played a political game with our precious water. They pit environment and land users against each other instead of seeing the health of the two as inextricably linked. Water strategies should not be – and they are not – mutually exclusive. For example, governments, particularly this Labor government, due to pressure from big irrigators, pressure from the Nationals, refuse to consider buybacks. There are some impacts on communities that absolutely need to be considered, but instead of considering that in a nuanced way, in a way that looks at the whole and looks at the effectiveness and the fairness of all the options, the government just completely refuses to do buybacks at all in favour of expensive large-scale engineering projects that offset their environmental water requirement. Environment groups and water scientists, the experts in these fields, agree that efficiency projects are only viable when combined with a suite of other techniques, such as increased environmental flows and constraints relaxation. To date the Victorian government, this Labor government, remains in the feasibility stage of constraints relaxation implementation – 10 years on from its commitment to implement this Commonwealth-funded program. It just does not seem good enough. It is a complex issue, the protection of water and all of these interconnected systems with so many different vested interests, and of course it requires complex solutions. But nevertheless this government must be held accountable to its commitment to ensure that water is returned to the ecosystem, is returned to the environment, because it is not separate from the system.

I also want to touch on the issue of water market transparency. This bill claims to enact reforms to water market transparency, but the reforms are pretty piecemeal. The government has chosen to marketise the river systems whilst building in these really opaque transparency mechanisms, making it really difficult to access information about water holders and their impact on the market. During the government’s own consultation process regarding this matter back in 2019 the community overwhelmingly reported that whilst there may be a lot of information technically available to community members regarding the water market, it is really hard to find and very time consuming to gather it all together and make sense of it.

While the community asked for improved access to information, it also agreed that there should be greater transparency regarding large water holders in the market. But at present the Labor government only releases information for water holders with 2 per cent of water allocation within any given system. What this actually means is that in one system, such as the Murray above the Barmah Choke, information is published regarding water holders who have approximately 8 gigalitres or more of water allocation whilst in another system information is only published for water holders with 70 gigalitres of water holdings, nearly 10 times as much. Therefore, depending on the river system, we are still without a great deal of transparency regarding major water holders. I do not see how that is a system of equality across water users let alone how it constitutes true transparency.

The bill’s introduction of transparency to include individuals along with corporations does not quite go far enough. If the government wants to treat water as a public resource, it must follow the precedent set by transparency mechanisms elsewhere. We would never accept that another industry that was, say, digging up a small bit of land here for an essential resource would not have to tell anyone because it was only a small parcel of land. That same thing should go for water. We need Labor to stand up to the vested corporate interests and commit to true transparency. Shining a light on the issue is the first step in solving it.

Water is essential. It is life. We literally cannot live without it. Through decades of mismanagement, capitalism, vested interests and big corporations having control over these government decisions and governments giving in to those pressures, we are literally letting our rivers die, and the only people who suffer are us. We are the ones who suffer because of it. Maybe we do not suffer right now, maybe there is money in it right now, but in a very short time we will suffer because of this. I hope that coming to the end of the 10-year Murray–Darling Basin plan in 2024 the government seriously considers a major reform in our approach to water, especially in our river systems. We need to do things differently; we need to do things better. We will be here supporting solutions that truly protect our ecosystems, the environment and the wellbeing of communities everywhere, whether they be First Nations communities, farming communities, city or country, now and into the future, because quite simply none of us can live without water, and we need to really have that perspective front and centre.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:43): I too rise and join my colleagues in saying a few words to support the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. We all know that back in 2021 the government did pass the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, and that introduced a new framework to regulate the place, rate and time of taking water. It allows for better management of the system which delivers water to rural water users and so protects existing rights and waterways. This bill clarifies some sections of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 to ensure that it is in line with the intent of that act and so that the reforms can be smoothly implemented. It will continue to protect the existing rights of Victorian water users, provide more flexibility for them to manage their own delivery risks and improve powers to manage delivery shortfalls.

The bill extends the default commencement date of the place-of-take approvals framework to 1 July 2024. It does not introduce the framework; it was introduced under that Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill. It makes some technical amendments to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act to ensure that the legislation functions as it was intended when it was first introduced. The reason that the bill has been brought forward on its own is because of the short time frame that it has to pass through this Parliament. If the bill is not given assent by 1 July, the place-of-take framework will come into effect and will essentially void much of the bill. It has been brought forward on its own because of the imperative to pass in the May–June sitting period.

The passage of the bill will provide certainty for water users, particularly those who were impacted by the flooding in 2022. Due to the election campaign period last year and with the heavy legislative agenda of this government, the bill was not able to be considered before the October 2022 flood event. We do know the devastation that the 2022 floods caused across Victoria, particularly for regional Victorians in the north of our state. Thousands of Victorians are still dealing with the flood recovery today, and we know that is a long, difficult and at times distressing process. Many Victorians who were impacted by the floods were farmers and water users in our declared systems where the place-of-take-approvals framework will be implemented. These farmers have much to do, particularly with the flood recovery, and simply in many cases do not have the ability to engage with the many consultations on the implementation of this framework or even to adapt to the new framework in just a few months time. So in January this year when consultation did resume after being paused as a result of the floods, the turnout to the consultation sessions was low, and those who did not attend said that they just did not have the bandwidth to prepare for the changes. The government took all of that on board, and that is why it has delayed the commencement of the place-of-take approvals, which will give regional Victorians the time they need to be ready and informed.

The place-of-take approvals were introduced as a part of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, and that framework improves Victoria’s approach to managing approvals to take water and delivery rights in declared systems. It provides water users more certainty about their rights to take water from a river during the rare event of a shortfall and more flexibility to manage their own delivery risks. These changes are particularly important in the Murray River downstream of the Barmah Choke, where shortfall risks are known to be increasing. The changes will mean that the Minister for Water can introduce rules to protect existing water users’ rights by capping extraction share as well as introduce rules to enable the trade of extraction share where possible without third-party impacts. The changes will also provide for a more effective and consistent enforcement and compliance regime for non-compliance with the conditions of taking water.

The River Murray system has seen significant changes over the past 10 to 20 years in both supply and demand for water. Changes within the system and changes in demand are making it increasingly difficult to move water to where and when it is needed for irrigation and the environment, which can lead to shortfalls in delivery. Although such shortfalls in the Murray have been rare, the risk of shortfalls occurring is real and is increasing. While we are coming out of a La Niña weather event, at the moment the Bureau of Meteorology has already declared an El Niño watch. An El Niño event would further increase the risk of a shortfall event in Victoria if we experience lower than average rainfall for a prolonged period of time.

In general, climate change is reducing the overall average water in our rivers with more variable rainfall and hotter than average weather, and so we do need to act now to protect the rights of our water users, including the environment. A shortfall itself is when water that is entitled to be used, including by irrigators and the environment, cannot be delivered when and where it is needed. A shortfall can happen when river operators are not able to deliver water to users – for example, when there is an increased daily demand during a heatwave and the long distance from the dams means that water cannot be delivered in time or when there is not enough capacity in the river and channel system to supply all downstream water needs, such as when flows through Barmah Choke are at full capacity and there is not enough water in the Menindee Lakes and Lake Victoria to meet all the lower Murray demands.

One of the other more important technical changes in the bill is to do with water market transparency. The bill will enable market transparency related amendments to commence separately from the place-of-take approval framework, so that means that the market transparency improvements, which the community have been thoroughly consulted on, can still be introduced from 1 July 2023 – earlier than the place-of-take approval framework. This will provide additional time for consultation with water users on the rules and regulations that give effect to the place-of-take approval framework without unnecessarily delaying the market transparency improvements.

Reforming the transparency of our water market is important work. It improves the accountability and fairness of the water market and gives the public access to important information about our largest holders of water. The Andrews Labor government is improving accountability and transparency in our water market. This complements the extensive work which has been done in the Victorian water sector to ensure strict compliance measures are in place. In Victoria we do not tolerate non-compliance with our water laws. Water corporations undertake a range of measures, therefore, to ensure that compliance, including water metering, strict reporting and community education as well as enforcement of those rules. Water is of course a scarce and limited resource in Victoria, and climate change will only worsen the challenges that we are facing, so this makes the market transparency compliance and strengthening delivery rights more important than ever. The amendment bill is a good bill. It is a bill that I commend to this house.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:53): I am very happy to rise to speak on this very important subject matter of water and water delivery rights. I do just want to pick up on a couple of points that were mentioned in the chamber. I note that it is very easy to diminish the significance of fundamental reforms when, for instance, with the member for Melbourne, you do not actually have to deliver, you do not have to handle any of the complexity of it and you can just sit there and trash what the government is doing very easily. I think that is quite offensive. So I just want to pick up on a couple of those points because I think it is important to be really clear about the incredible work that is already well underway and is very much proactive as opposed to reactive in nature.

I know that the Minister for Water Harriet Shing is very proud and very forthright in terms of striding forward when we are looking at reducing our emissions in the water sector. Just as an example, Victoria’s water corporations have committed to reducing their emissions to net zero by 2035. To put water corporations on the right path to achieving this goal they have committed to achieving a 42.4 per cent reduction in their collective emissions by 2025 and a 93.7 per cent reduction by 2030. That does not sound reactive. That sounds very proactive, with full sight of the problem we have with climate change and the delicacy of maintaining and sustaining water into the future.

Secondly, Victoria has a nation-leading policy in Water Is Life, because I note that the member for Melbourne did mention water is life. Well, let us speak to that point, shall we? We might just reframe it in a very honest context with regard to what Victoria is actually doing. The road map for traditional owner access: this road map seeks to return water management to traditional owners and empower them to make decisions about their water. It will also return water where possible, which they can use in their own self-determined way. We are working closely with traditional owners already to consult them on water management and projects.

Victoria has already delivered 826 gigalitres under the basin plan and has also delivered more water than any other basin state for the environment. We are dedicated to returning water to the environment in a way which does not hurt our regional communities – hence that complexity, that delicate balance. We are looking for innovative ways to find more water to return to the environment and traditional owners. Across urban and regional Victoria we look for ways to return water to our waterways, improve the health and quality of our waterways and improve our water efficiency through programs like the Victorian Waterway Management Strategy, the catchment management authority flagship, waterway projects, our sustainable water strategies and our integrated water management programs.

Water also has the strongest compliance rules in place in the country. I am just going to say that again: Victoria also has the strongest compliance rules in place in the country. So, you know, that is why I was a bit sensitive about this issue of sort of mitigating or trying to diffuse the significance of the very significant steps that Victoria has been taking for some time in terms of having better sustainability with regard to water and water management into the future. This means we know that water in our rivers is highly reliable real water for the environment. We have strict compliance measures in place to ensure that people are not taking more water than they are entitled to.

That brings me around to the premise of this particular bill here, noting that there is a delay and that the bill will also delay the default commencement of the new framework from July 2023 to July 2024. Of course that has been very well transacted in the chamber, but I am very happy to say that it is good that we have a sense of unity on this point because it will ensure that there is enough time to engage with flood-affected farmers on the implementation of the new framework so that the rules and regulations are sensible and to provide irrigators sufficient time to prepare for commencement of the new framework. Now, the place-of-take approvals framework is a new approach to water delivery entitlements in Victorian declared systems that will clarify and protect existing water users’ rights to take water during the rare event of a shortfall due to delivery constraints in the river and provide flexibility for water users to manage their own delivery risks.

I guess I was just concerned with some of the discussion in the chamber from the member for Melbourne – not Melton. I think I am sort of sliding there a little bit. I need to be very clear about that; it is just quite distinct. You know, it is very easy to dismiss and to diffuse and to disparage when in fact there is incredible work being done. And we can see, with where we have come to this day with regard to this bill, that we are very much aware of the significance and the critical role that water plays in our lives. I actually find it quite patronising when we are lectured about the importance of water. I think everyone in this chamber would be fully aware that human beings cannot survive without it, and hence that is why we have aggressive targets and action underway to help mitigate the impact of climate change and to ensure that we do preserve sufficient water into the future.

So I hope that that helps to abate some of the concerns that may have been raised by the member for Melbourne, because we are very much aware of the innate complexity when it comes to the management of water and respecting that delicate balance between sustaining water for our environment and also the needs of regional communities, who, ultimately, are working in the environment. So there is obviously an overlap in that space – they are not distinct entities in any case – because we cannot survive without food so we need water for the agriculture. I mean, I am making obvious statements –

The SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member may continue her speech when the matter is next before the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.