Wednesday, 19 June 2024
Motions
Ombudsman referral
Motions
Ombudsman referral
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:22): I move:
That this house:
(1) notes that:
(a) Kensington Banks is a recent development advertised as being above the flood risk zone and is not currently subject to a land subject to inundation overlay (LSIO);
(b) recent flood remodelling by Melbourne Water reclassified over 900 homes in Kensington Banks as a flood risk in 2024, resulting in financial burden and risk for residents who purchased homes in good faith, based on government advice about flood risk;
(c) the Rivervue retirement development in Avondale Heights was inundated during the 2022 floods and the LSIO was moved during the development process;
(2) pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, refers the following matters to the Ombudsman for investigation and report:
(a) the development of Kensington Banks, including:
(i) the flood information relied on at the time of development;
(ii) whether promised flood mitigation measures were effectively undertaken at the time of development;
(iii) flood risk information provided to residents before they moved in;
(iv) losses incurred by residents as a result of changed flood modelling;
(v) the accuracy of historical and current Melbourne Water modelling and implications for residents;
(b) the relocation of the LSIO at Rivervue;
(c) policy changes needed in the future;
(d) compensation, support and proposed measures and solutions for residents in the affected areas;
(e) any other related matters; and
(3) requires the Ombudsman investigation to include at least one day of public hearings.
Kensington Banks, in the inner west of Melbourne, is a relatively new housing estate; homes are only between 10 and 25 years old. The area includes a thousand homes, and many people know it as the old stock route. Kensington Banks was developed as a joint venture between the state government, the City of Melbourne and the developer Urban Pacific. I understand the federal government was also involved in funding the development and associated flood mitigation works at the time.
At the time of development and right up until April of this year residents were told by government agencies that all their homes were above the flood zone. People moved into this area and bought their homes and took out big mortgages, reassured by this advice. Yet in April this year residents woke up to find out Melbourne Water had remodelled the flood zone and all their homes were now in the high-risk flood zone. Residents with huge mortgages are now facing skyrocketing insurance premiums and huge risks to their homes and are very uncertain and worried about their future.
Daniel is a teacher who lives in Kensington Banks. He has two young children who have just started primary school. He bought his home in January this year. He explicitly sought advice from Melbourne Water about flood risk – they told him his home was above the 1 per cent flood risk zone. Just three months later he was told that advice was essentially incorrect. Over 900 families are in a similar situation. These residents understand that things are changing because of climate change, but this modelling is a change to the current flood risk, not just the 2100 climate change flood risk – these 900 homes are deemed at risk from flooding now, not just in 2100. Essentially this is an admission that the government got the flood modelling wrong in the first place and provided incorrect advice to residents, who made huge financial and life decisions based on this information. Residents want to know what happens now. They have a lot of questions, and understandably so, but they are not being given a lot of answers.
The government simply say that they have to wait for further advice on what flood mitigation measures might be possible, yet Melbourne Water has told residents that any flood mitigation measures will take a very long time, probably 18 months to initially scope, then years to approve, then five to eight years or more to build. Residents will be waiting more than 10 years for action to protect them, if it even happens at all. That is 10 years of huge insurance price hikes. One resident has already had her insurance premium increase tenfold, from $140 a month to $1400 a month. That is over $16,000 a year, which they cannot afford. Residents are being told that they should be flood ready and are given flyers about how they could replace their entire kitchens with more flood-resistant cabinets, which are tens of thousands of dollars – but they will have to pay for all of this themselves. They are even being told they have to pay over $1000 each for surveying costs to determine the exact level of flooding in their own homes.
When they ask about the Flemington Racecourse flood wall, which protected the racing and gambling industries in 2022 but resulted in more homes flooding than if the wall was not built, residents are pretty much given radio silence from the state government. This is an untenable situation. Residents deserve some answers and some action. This remodelling came to light just as the Parliament’s inquiry into the 2022 flood event was coming to a close, so the community’s questions were not able to be put to the relevant government agencies as much as we would have liked. We asked the government to extend the inquiry, but we understand that this is not possible.
Ryan Batchelor: You have not. That is a lie.
Sarah MANSFIELD: That is what I am told. We have spoken with other parties about the possibility of doing a separate parliamentary inquiry to look specifically at the case of Kensington Banks – how it was built, what modelling was relied on at the time, whether it was accurate and reasonable, whether Kensington Banks was built to the correct flood levels, whether proper mitigation works were actually done and what solutions could be implemented. However, other parties in this chamber have indicated to us they would not support another parliamentary inquiry, which is disappointing because we think the community deserve to have their questions asked and answered, and government agencies like Melbourne Water and those who made decisions at the time should be interrogated.
In the absence of a proper parliamentary inquiry, we are moving a referral to the Ombudsman pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973. If this passes, the Ombudsman will be required to run an investigation looking into all of these matters, including the development of Kensington Banks estate, including (1) the flood-level information relied on at the time of development, (2) whether promised flood mitigation measures were effectively undertaken at the time of development, (3) flood-risk information provided to residents before they moved in, (4) losses incurred by residents as a result of change in flood modelling, (5) proposed solutions to support residents following the flood remodelling, (6) the removal of the land subject to inundation overlay at Rivervue estate and losses incurred by residents as a result, and proposed measures to support residents, (7) policy changes needed to avoid similar circumstances occurring in the future and (8) compensation or support for residents in the affected areas and of course any other matters that people would like to look at.
We have included the Rivervue retirement estate in this referral as well because it is one of the most egregious examples of poor planning that has resulted in huge implications for ordinary people’s lives. This was an estate that had its flood overlay removed at the behest of property developers, yet in 2022 it flooded, leaving many residents in despair. They too were told their homes were above the flood zone. It seems that this was not actually the case and profit was put over people’s lives and livelihoods. Kensington Banks and Rivervue are two examples of where ordinary people are being made to pay huge costs, including huge financial costs, for the poor decisions of previous governments. They deserve answers and action. Governments need to take some responsibility for the decisions that they made that have put ordinary people in a very precarious situation. We hope that with a referral to the Ombudsman we can get some of these answers for the community.
As climate change worsens and governments have also had to deal with the consequences of making planning decisions in isolation, without a thought to the whole catchment or a whole city, resulting in consequences such as increased flooding downstream, more and more examples like this are likely to come to light. Putting a spotlight on these examples now will mean we can properly look at how they can be managed and avoided in the future. I commend the motion to the house.
Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:30): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak about this motion moved by Dr Mansfield in regard to the Kensington Banks estate and various other matters to do with flood-related matters. Notably what is at the heart of this motion is that the Greens are seeking a referral to the Ombudsman for investigation and report into the Kensington Banks estate and flood matters. There is a lot in this motion. I will not go through it, because Dr Mansfield has already read it into the record and made her contribution on it this morning.
But the thing that I want to talk about just in brief, and I have got some other points to make here, is that the last time that I bought a house – it was quite some time ago now – I got legal advice and I had a solicitor or a conveyancer who acted for me. I have never heard of anyone who said you should not get advice about the house that you are purchasing, and I have never relied on a water authority to give me advice about the house I am purchasing. Usually a lawyer does that. A lawyer normally does all the relevant checks as part of that conveyance, and they provide all the relevant information and detail about that as part of the arrangements for the contract. As a lawyer myself, I am reasonably familiar with that. I guess the point is that if you purchased a house that you are now saying has issues that you were not aware of, then there are other avenues for people to pursue rather than the state government. It is quite outrageous and unreasonable, when we come into this place, to hear every single day the Greens speaking for other members of this Parliament in disparaging terms about things.
I heard in the earlier parts of Dr Mansfield’s contribution an acknowledgement of the role climate change is playing in relation to flood and water. In fact by all predictions we are going to have less rain but more intense outbursts or downpours, which means that there might be higher flood levels at particular times, although it goes away, but less rain over a period of time. I know what our government is doing in terms of managing the risks of climate change. But even if people feel they need to have some kind of recourse, it is not right for the Greens political party to come in here and say every time there is a problem that government should pay. You get legal advice, and there are opportunities for people to go back through channels of legal advice they may have had at the time for recourse. It is not the water authority that gives legal advice to people who buy a house – that is just ridiculous. The disinformation we hear in these contributions just never ceases.
I have to say what is at the heart of this motion is another Ombudsman referral. Yet again we see political parties like the Greens coming in here and wanting to use our integrity agencies and bodies as their own personal playthings. There was a referral through this chamber to the Environment and Planning Committee, which I was the chair of and now Mr Batchelor is the chair of, and there has been a detailed inquiry, which I understand is still underway. I do not know what has happened to that inquiry because I am no longer involved in it, and it is interesting that members who are on that inquiry should not really be talking about those matters as a matter of parliamentary privilege. This raises very interesting questions as a result of your contribution, Dr Mansfield. This inquiry is still ongoing. It raises very, very interesting questions. When members in this place do not get what they want as a result of an inquiry through this chamber they seek to use up precious resources given to our integrity agencies to undertake important work to inquire into matters that are of public importance.
For communities who are affected by floods or any other natural disasters, it is absolutely unconscionable that the Greens political party and others come in here and continue to beat the drum around these matters, preventing those communities from moving forward and getting their lives back together so that they can move forward in their lives and rebuild their lives rather than continue to pick off the scabs of healing and recovery. It is quite disgraceful. I stood here in this chamber yesterday and made a speech about poor behaviour, yet all I am getting from down that end of the chamber is eye rolling. It is another example of poor and toxic culture, this behaviour – absolutely disgraceful. I can make a contribution responding to matters that were raised.
Sonja TERPSTRA: I do not need comments from Legalise Cannabis down the front either. These are matters that are critically important because they affect people.
Sonja TERPSTRA: You can laugh. Again, this is another example of toxic behaviour. The disrespect that I get from those down there is absolutely appalling. Because you have got nothing of merit or substance to say, all you resort to is toxic behaviour. I am calling it out, because I have been personally affected by toxic behaviour from the crossbench – absolutely. I welcome integrity measures in this Parliament. I am sick of being lectured at by the intelligentsia and by the Greens about what this government should do and what working people should do and how everybody should live their lives because they know better. I am here to say that they do not know better. All they seek to do, as I said before, is use the Ombudsman and other important integrity agencies as their personal whipping post – they did not get the answer they wanted, and they want to keep going. That is unfair on communities. All they want to do is heal. It is absolutely a disgrace.
The business of water agencies and water authorities is that they do flood mapping. These are detailed exercises. They take a lot of time, they take a lot of resources and they take a lot of money. There are so many, many different factors that go into that. In fact in regard to the recent flooding event, with the two different flood scenarios of the Maribyrnong River flood model that were mapped – the current-day 2024 flood scenario and a forecasted 2100 flood scenario – both are based on a flood event that has a 1 per cent chance of occurring in any given year. This is known as the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability. Where the new 1 per cent AEP flood maps indicate an area that is subject to flooding, this does not necessarily mean that each building in this area will experience over-floor flooding during such a flood event. There is always risk when you are purchasing a property near water. For example, I live in Heidelberg. I live near the Yarra; I am actually on a hill, but I am in a flood zone. I knew that when I purchased that property. So what do I do when it rains? I take note of what the emergency services apps are telling me about flooding. That is what I do as somebody who purchased that property with a known risk. There are changes that happen over time, like climate change, but I take appropriate steps and actions to manage those risks.
Additional mapping has been provided by Melbourne Water to help illustrate the flood depth. The flood depth, as I said, is understood at an individual property level. The water authorities give the best estimates they can based on all the flooding, and as I have said, the impacts of climate change mean that there are going to be some variances. As I said, there is going to be less water over time but more intense downpours. Things change over time, and people have to look at that and accept that there are risks associated with that.
As I said, it is disappointing that this motion has come before the chamber before the parliamentary flood inquiry has even made its final report. The motion seems to pre-empt the potential findings and recommendations that could be made in relation to updated flood modelling. This is disappointing. We should allow the processes to run their course. We know Melbourne Water and members of the independent panel appeared before the committee in early May to answer questions on the updated flood modelling and provide further evidence to the committee for consideration. The flood inquiry spent more than a year considering considerable evidence in relation to the flooding around Victoria, and this motion does not give any consideration or respect to that evidence – not only to the community members who came and gave their evidence but also the experts and government witnesses who came in good faith to give their evidence and information to the committee.
I look forward to that final report, and I want to thank chair Ryan Batchelor for continuing on with the inquiry in advance of that, and for the hard work and the dedication to this important and very technical area. It has been quite traumatic and distressing, and I want to thank all those community members. We went around the state when I was chairing that. We went to regional areas – not only to Maribyrnong – which I am sure some of the crossbench have more interest in. This impacted regional areas. It impacted the entire state really in many ways. I want to pay tribute and thank those community members who turned up and gave us their heartfelt and emotional evidence about what they have experienced. They were looking to this parliamentary inquiry, which is not a government inquiry, to try and make sense of what happened to them. I want to thank those community members who turned out to give their evidence to the inquiry. This motion is ill conceived. The Ombudsman and finite resources should not be used as a personal whipping post for parliamentarians, and we should be voting against and defeating this motion.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:40): I rise to speak on motion 460 put forward by Dr Mansfield, and I thank her for doing so. This is a very significant issue for our community. It is a very significant issue for my electorate. Particularly I would like to thank Dr Mansfield for the collaborative approach she has taken in putting this motion forward. We know a large number of residents at Kensington Banks had purchased properties in good faith and were relying on advertising and government advice around flood risk, and these locals and these families trusted the government to provide them with information. We have had MPs accusing other MPs of breaching parliamentary privilege, which I think is pretty extraordinary. Perhaps Ms Terpstra would like to move that in a substantive motion, but I am guessing that she will not.
The development was not considered to be in a flood-risk zone and it is still not land subject to an inundation overlay. However, recent flood remodelling by Melbourne Water reclassified over 900 homes in Kensington Banks as at flood risk. This remodelling is having a significant impact on locals – a very significant impact on locals who have contacted me, who I am sure have contacted government members and who I know have contacted crossbench members as well. It means that in a cost-of-living crisis insurance premiums are going up significantly, even more than they are for the majority of people at the moment. It means that the property values are going down significantly. Many have poured their life savings into buying a home in the area, and it is just devastating. I speak to a lot of families in that area, and a lot of families in general are dealing with a crisis in home valuations, the residential construction sector and insurance, and this seems to be no different – really heart-wrenching stories I have heard from people in Kensington about this. It means great angst for locals – how flooding would disrupt their lives if the revised modelling is correct.
My inbox has been flooded with emails and my office has been flooded with calls from concerned locals. I could stand here for the rest of my contribution and give you my point of view, but I would rather echo and amplify the voices of residents that have written to me and that I have spoken to. First of all, Jason wrote to me and said:
My family and I live in the Kensington Banks and have recently had our home reclassified as a property which could be subject to inundation during a 1% flood event.
The immediate effect of this has been our home and contents insurance going up in price from $1500 a year to $6000 a year, an amount that is completely unaffordable.
We have lived in the banks for 8 years, and bought our current home 5 years ago before the birth of our daughter. During the purchase I paid particular attention to the flood overlay, as the property was close to the river. The overlay, as well as the work that had been done to mitigate the flooding, gave us the confidence to purchase the property. No doubt you can understand how disappointed and angry we are now to find out that our property has been reclassified as flood prone.
In particular, we are … disappointed in:
• The accuracy of the flood modelling that the 2003 overlay appears to have undergone a rushed and half done process, which ignored key aspects and changes that directly affect flood levels
• Melbourne water’s excuse that flood levels have gone up due to upstream development is very dissapointing – this comes across that our property and safety is less important than allowing other properties to be developed
• The floodwall arround the racecourse, which Melbourne water appear to be giving different versions on its actual impact on the flooding that … will occur
Based on what we have recieved from Melbourne water, we have lost confidence in this organisation’s ability to manage the issues and question its impartiality and lack of accountability.
Rachel said:
I am a Kensington Banks resident who has had their property recently included in the Maribyrnong River Flood modelling. I fear that my property will be subject to flooding, that the value of my main asset has instantaneously decreased and that property insurance will now be unaffordable.
Shelley said:
I purchased my house in 2015 and made sure that the area was not subject to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). I was also reassured that the estate had been planned as a joint venture with the government and that flood mitigation had been put in place. Thinking I had done my due diligence, I was very concerned watching flood waters near my home in 2022, and am now dismayed and angry that the response to this flood has been to rezone homes in our area, and a leaflet drop asking us to be “flood ready”. There has been a significant policy failure and it is not acceptable that the financial and risk consequences are worn by local residents as a result of poor government decision-making in planning and urban development.
I have received countless – absolutely countless – stories like this from residents that did their best to act in a responsible and diligent manner, only to be let down by Labor. I have spoken to many residents on the phone who know the area quite well and who all agree that it is very, very unlikely to flood. It is incredibly disappointing thus far that Labor have refused to provide any detail about the planned or future flood mitigation works and are leaving residents in the dark. We need to get to the bottom of this issue, which is why this motion refers the matter to the Ombudsman.
On this side of the chamber we have a very clear position. We expect more to be done to support residents who have been impacted by flooding and rising premiums, compounded by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Labor must take action to ensure that remediation works are undertaken by Melbourne Water and the government reduces the flood risk to this community. Unlike this tired, old Labor government, we will not take Victorians for granted. We will take action and stand up for those that are paying the price now due to mismanagement on this issue.
I want to thank again Dr Mansfield and others that I have spoken to. I particularly want to thank the community in Kensington Banks for being so vocal about this. I am listening as your local member, and I think the only right thing to do after so many phone calls, so many emails and so much correspondence is on behalf of this community to back you in, on behalf of this community to support you and let you know that those of us on this side of the house, and hopefully on the crossbench as well, absolutely support you in this cruel, cruel event that has happened to you. We will stand with you and fight with you to do whatever it takes to resolve this horrible issue for you.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:48): I rise to make a contribution on the motion before the house, and in doing so I would just like to say that I am aware of my obligation as a member of the Planning and Environment Committee to maintain confidentiality about the committee process. I just want to get that on the record and that I respect that, and of course that does limit the ability to make statements on this issue.
The Kensington Banks housing development was a joint venture between the state government’s office of major projects, the City of Melbourne and Burbank Urban in partnership with Urban Pacific, which has subsequently gone, I believe, bankrupt. This development was sold to people – and not cheaply, I might add – as a safe and as a secure place to live. Those of us who watched this redevelopment of the old meatworks and the old munitions plant that were previously on the site should have perhaps realised at the time that there were some management issues associated with the site when we saw the government basically remove the top 2 metres of toxic soil across that whole 30-hectare site to replace it with clean fill. Unfortunately, that clean fill was largely excavated from the then Crown Casino construction site and it was equally toxic. You could say that the ground on which these people’s homes were built was about as environmentally safe as it was safe from flooding.
People were informed that the site had been elevated to avoid flooding, and the recent Melbourne Water flood modelling did show that the houses on Hobsons Road – that is, on the riverside boundary of Kensington Banks – were indeed safe from the flooding, or the 1 per cent, 2024-modelled flooding. Unfortunately, the developers apparently did not see the need to elevate the remainder of the site adequately to protect the other dwellings from flooding. The recently revised flood modelling from Melbourne Water showing that around 800 houses would be subject to inundation has literally devastated the community, and this is a community in which I have lived for close to 30 years. Residents are now faced with increased insurance premiums, decreased property prices and a precarious, if not ruined, financial future, including negative equity in their own homes.
Contrary to Ms Terpstra’s rather addled commentary, residents who bought into these sites and their lawyers in doing their due diligence could not have detected these changes. That due diligence would have shown that this was land that was not subject to an LSIO, a land subject to inundation overlay, so I have no idea where she was going with that, and I am certainly glad she is not my lawyer. The cruelty of this situation is further exacerbated by Melbourne Water’s claims that the adjoining Flemington Racecourse flood wall will reduce flood levels on the Kensington Banks estate in the event of a 1 per cent flood event. This frankly beggars belief. It fails the pub test, and it adds insult to injury. I know that people will say, ‘Well, this is what’s come from the hydrologists and this is what’s come from the scientists, and you’re just denying the modelling.’ I get that. But the problem is that this was put before the committee after it had finished its deliberations and the committee had no way to interrogate this information. That is part of the reason why we are here today and why I commend the Greens for bringing forward this motion to try and get some clarity and some understanding.
Residents at Kensington Banks rightly have a lot of questions, and those questions need to be answered. They are deeply, deeply frustrated, not only by the sort of laissez faire, ‘You bought the land, you cop the consequences’ approach that Ms Terpstra was enunciating but also by the actions of Melbourne Water in terms of responding to people’s deeply felt concerns – like, for example, telling everyone in the media: ‘If you want to know how you’re going to be affected, you can just ring us. Just ring Melbourne Water and we will tell you how you’re going to be affected.’ Well, what Melbourne Water will actually tell you is what the water is going to be like, sort of, in your area, but it will not tell you whether it is going to go above your floorboards. If you want that piece of information, you have the privilege of paying an extra $1000. I mean, that is the sort of warmth and empathy that we all look for from our statutory authorities, isn’t it?
Given that level of frustration, you can understand that there is a similar sense of frustration and powerlessness that is being experienced by the many residents in the Rivervue Retirement Village. Forty-seven of those units were inundated in the 2022 floods. The cohort has now grown to about 100 units based on the new flood modelling. Those units were only permitted to be constructed after a complex and confusing review process involving Moonee Valley council, Melbourne Water and VCAT which saw the land subject to inundation overlay actually drop – it was brought down. As the Pagone review into the 2022 flood event noted, the rationale behind this decision appears to have been lost in the sands of time. That is not exactly what you call comforting for those residents of the retirement village. Elderly, respected citizens who had often put their life savings into those units were told, ‘Well, yeah, you’re screwed. But you just have to cop it because we don’t know how or why this happened.’
Let us face it, the committee did not have the resources or the ability to undertake a detailed forensic exercise of how the process came to be approved. The committee spoke – and this is all on the public record. Mr Batchelor is giving me a frown here; I hope I am not breaching anything. This is in the public domain – it was broadcast. We sought to find out how this could have happened, how this decision could have been made, and in the end it was this complex, long process involving the Moonee Valley council, Melbourne Water and VCAT hearings. It is appropriate that someone with more resources and more experience gets to the bottom of this question. Let us ask ourselves the question: what do these two developments have in common? I am glad you asked, because it is the central rationale for this motion: how were these catastrophic planning decisions made, and who is ultimately responsible for the lives and the security that have been destroyed?
Given the political underpinnings associated with the formal processes in both examples, it is entirely appropriate for an impartial and independent set of eyes to scrutinise these two cases. Let us take it out of this sphere, let us take it out of the red hell and let us actually let experts who can do this forensically explore these questions and let the Environment and Planning Committee move on. No doubt many of the threads that have underpinned this current inquiry into the 2022 floods will be collaboratively explored in the forthcoming inquiry into climate change resilience and adaptation. There are few keener eyes than those of our Victorian Ombudsman, and I hope that this will draw some comfort to the residents of Kensington Banks and the Rivervue retirement village. Accordingly, Legalise Cannabis Victoria will support this motion, and we commend it to the chamber.
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:58): I rise to speak on Dr Mansfield’s motion. As the chair of the Environment and Planning Committee, which is in the middle of an inquiry into matters substantially covered by this motion, I think it falls upon me to reflect a little bit on the disappointment that we could not wait to hear the voices of those who contributed to that inquiry. The 880 submissions, the 13 days of public hearings, the site visits, the 58 witness sessions with 183 witnesses, the appearance by Melbourne Water twice, the appearance by the independent review panel and the independent engineers, hydrologists and planners that support their work and two ministers – we could have had the committee’s processes over the last 17 months inform this chamber before this motion was moved, because we do not need to wait long. The committee is due to report by the end of June.
It is also I think an interesting reflection on those who suggest that they want more time for that committee that the place to grant that committee more time is this chamber. They could have brought a motion today to do that, but they did not. I think as a reflection on the committee process it is disappointing and a little bit disrespectful to that work to seek to undermine what the committee may find and report and that body of evidence and to pre-empt it with this motion to refer these matters to the Ombudsman. If we were drawing a Venn diagram of overlap between the issues that the committee is looking at – that the committee was asked to look at by this chamber 17 months ago – and the matters sought to be considered by the Ombudsman, there would be a considerable overlap in those two circles. I think it is beholden upon me as chair of that committee to just reflect on the disappointment and the frustration and to reflect on what that does to our faith in parliamentary processes. It is clearly a very frustrating issue for members of the community, who we have heard from repeatedly as part of this parliamentary committee process and more broadly. Obviously these are challenging issues. We have heard what they have to say both formally and informally and we continue to listen to them.
I want to make a couple of remarks. Obviously this is being generated by new modelling that was released by Melbourne Water. Dr Mansfield in her contribution said that this modelling is a change to the flood risk, but it is not. It is modelling. The flood risk is a product of our climate and our built environment. Modelling seeks to illuminate the community on that risk, the best evidence of that risk and the scientific evidence of that risk, so that individuals and governments, people and their elected representatives, can make decisions on what is appropriate based on the risk that they know.
We also know that risk is dynamic. The Melbourne we live in in 2024 is different to the Melbourne of the 1990s, when the planning for Kensington Banks was initiated. We have better scientific knowledge, we have a better understanding of hydrology and water flows and our climate has changed in the last 30 years. We do not deny that the climate has changed, and we do not deny that there are consequences of that climate change. But you cannot say that you believe in climate change and the risks that arise from it and then deny scientific evidence about those risks when they are laid before you. That is hypocrisy and that is opportunism built on people’s absolute fear about what may confront them. We should be reassuring and proactively trying to help rather than questioning scientific evidence which has been independently reviewed and assessed as being of high quality by independent experts in evidence that we got at our parliamentary inquiry – that this is the best available, the best quality, the most advanced flood risk modelling that we have.
The other important point is that people should be made aware of the changes in risk. It would be wrong of government not to tell people that that risk has changed. It would be wrong for government not to say that the changing climate, the intensification of weather events and the changes to our built environment are changing the flood risk that you face. It is not the modelling that is going to cause these houses to flood. It will be rainfall; it will be run-off. It will be the interactions of those two things through the Maribyrnong River and down to Kensington Banks. We need to be open about the dynamic nature of that risk that exists in this catchment and in all of the other catchments across Melbourne which are going to be the recipients of new flood modelling as a result of decisions that have been taken by Melbourne Water to make sure that residents right across Melbourne are informed about the dynamic risk that they face.
And also, we are not just going to say that this is a point in time, because one of the big critiques I think of the position that has been put in this debate is that we made decisions based on information – my maths is bad – 30 years ago in the 1990s. Decisions on this started in the 1990s, before the modelling that was critiqued from 2003 – so not just the last iteration of modelling but the modelling before that. If we seek to junk this modelling and undermine it, we say nothing has changed in 30 years, and I do not think that is a credible position to be in, and it is not a responsible position to be in.
The other point that I just want to briefly make, given it was also mentioned by Dr Mansfield in her contribution, I think is important because again it goes to the question of, ‘Do we listen to what experts tell us, or do we seek to undermine experts?’ We all know where the undermining of expert evidence takes us in terms of the political debate and in terms of the community debate. Dr Mansfield said in her contribution about the Flemington flood wall that residents deserve answers, and they do. Hopefully the parliamentary committee will give them some. But the modelling that has been released, and the second addendum that is on the Melbourne Water website, is very clear. It says:
The wall appears to provide a ‘shielding’ effect through Kensington Banks.
It goes on to say it is about 50 to 55 millimetres of shielding in terms of flood depth. People may quibble with parts of that. I for one accept the scientific evidence when it is presented to us, particularly when we have got no basis – I am not a hydrologist – to make a different set of opinions. But I do think we need to use facts, and all of them, in the context of a debate where fear is being used to prey on people’s concerns.
The last point I want to make is about insurance. There will be consequences from the changes to the flooding overlay on people’s insurance bills; that is absolutely true. These matters are being thoroughly examined by a Commonwealth parliamentary inquiry into flood insurance, and I hope that that process delivers some results.
I have to leave my contribution here. We are not going to be opposing this referral. If people want further analysis and people want further answers, then this is a mechanism through which the chamber can seek to get them. But we did this 18 months ago when we set up the parliamentary inquiry. We are not listening to the scientific evidence that is being presented to it, and we are not even listening to its final report. I hope next time things are different.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:08): I also rise speak on this Ombudsman referral. Unfortunately, I think I agree with the government here in that I feel that this is all a bit premature in that we have a large inquiry that has been running for a very long time and has had lots of evidence presented from residents and from experts, and it is due to report in a few weeks. I would be very, very interested in seeing the findings and recommendations of that report, because I would hope that they would address many of the things that are in here. I do not know – I assume that the report is not finalised yet – but I would think that we would want to at least look at that and give that consideration before sending a referral to the Ombudsman. I do not know that it is necessary to do that, because the committee is perfectly capable of doing this type of investigation, I would think, themselves and coming up with findings and recommendations.
I note that this inquiry was pushed very hard and supported very hard by the Greens, and there is a Greens member on the committee. If they feel that there are recommendations that the government should act on, they have the opportunity within that committee to do so. If they do not agree with the majority view of the committee, they can put in a minority report and make that recommendation. So I feel that this is quite premature. Depending on what the findings of the committee actually are when the report is produced, I would be happy to reconsider based on that evidence, but at this point in time I am much more inclined to not support this referral and wait a few weeks and see what the committee comes up with. That is my view.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:10): Today I rise to contribute to the debate on my colleague opposite Dr Mansfield’s motion on the Kensington Banks and Rivervue Ombudsman referral. The motion reads:
That this house:
(1) notes that:
(a) Kensington Banks is a recent development advertised as being above the flood risk zone and is not currently subject to a land subject to inundation overlay (LSIO);
(b) recent flood remodelling by Melbourne Water reclassified over 900 homes in Kensington Banks as a flood risk in 2024, resulting in financial burden and risk for residents who purchased homes in good faith, based on government advice about flood risk;
(c) the Rivervue retirement development in Avondale Heights was inundated during the 2022 floods and the LSIO was moved during the development process …
I want to pause here before I continue and acknowledge the many communities that were affected by the 2022 floods. I had the honour to participate in some of the regional hearings that investigated the 2022 flood events that affected so many, and their resilience and hard work was just incredible. Let us keep that front and centre today. Now back to the motion:
(2) pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, refers the following matters to the Ombudsman for investigation and report:
(a) the development of Kensington Banks, including:
(i) the flood information relied on at the time of development;
(ii) whether promised flood mitigation measures were effectively undertaken at the time of development;
(iii) flood risk information provided to residents before they moved in;
(iv) losses incurred by residents as a result of changed flood modelling;
(v) the accuracy of historical and current Melbourne Water modelling and implications for residents;
(b) the relocation of the LSIO at Rivervue;
(c) policy changes needed in the future;
(d) compensation, support and proposed measures and solutions for residents in the affected areas;
(e) any other related matters; and
(3) requires the Ombudsman investigation to include at least one day of public hearings.
It is critical that these houses are safe for Victorians to live in, with flood risk a crucial aspect of these standards, particularly in the context of this motion referring to metropolitan areas around the Maribyrnong River. We know both in our country and across the world we are seeing an increase in severe weather events, from floods to bushfires to storms, and they are creating increased distress and security concerns for all those located within more at-risk areas.
Climate change is a concern for people across the state, and our government is keenly aware of this. To ensure that Victorians not just in the Maribyrnong catchment but across the state are protected against increasing flood risks the Allan Labor government has invested $10 million to ensure that councils have the support to undertake flood studies, allowing them to make informed planning decisions in accordance with data. It has also dedicated $37 million in the Victorian state budget 2024–25 to give Victorian communities access to localised real-time information on flood and water movements.
The Victorian planning provisions and planning schemes more broadly are reviewed regularly to ensure that they are in line with the up-to-date requirements and information on flood mitigation management and climate change hazards and risks. Victorians want to know that their homes are protected against flood risks, and the Allan Labor government is committed to providing that assurance in congruence with the housing policy. This is what this motion from the Greens seems to refer to today: our updated requirements on flood-risk classification regarding climate change and modernised modelling technology and the impacts this has on properties near flood plains.
We know that communities have valid concerns, and that is why this government is committed to listening. Under previous modelling techniques the measures put in place to mitigate flood risks allowed for these properties to be classified as land subject to inundation overlay. These were relevant at the time but are out of date today. We acknowledge the stress that reclassifying someone’s home as a flood risk invariably causes, and we acknowledge the importance of scientific expertise when facing the reality of climate change. This is how we ensure the safety of our constituents in the changing climate landscape – and we know that it is. In reviewing the criteria impacting properties near flood plains we must be prepared for any potential flood risks, because the Allan Labor government has the responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all of our constituents. It is true that some areas that had been reclassified as higher risk were not impacted by the October 2022 flood event, but that was a one-in-50-year event. It had a devastating impact for so many Victorians, with around 1.16 million hectares of land impacted by flooding. Flood modelling is an estimation of potential risks, and a range of factors can influence whether a flood event occurs that we may not be able to predict. This is why we are developing our standards and modelling – to ensure resilience in our communities.
It is critical that we are truthful with Victorians when an area they reside in is at flood risk, so that we can prevent the harm. Climate change is undeniable, and it is going to have an impact on flood risk in many areas across Victoria. In expectation of increasing flood risk Melbourne Water will be updating flood modelling more regularly to ensure these high-risk communities are protected – every ten years with reviews every five. Rising sea levels impact the tidal lower ends of rivers like the Yarra and the Maribyrnong, and our flood modelling reflects this knowledge. This will impact places like Kensington Banks and Avondale Heights and also homes across the state.
To go back to the Maribyrnong, which Kensington Banks is situated directly across from, the new Maribyrnong River flood model released in April this year provides us with the most accurate modelling, with the most up-to-date data on rainfall and run-off and physical features of the flood plain and nearby areas. It has advanced capabilities to simulate water flow in multiple directions across the area, facilitating a more accurate model of how water flows in the region. Simply, we can more accurately predict flood patterns and their effects on the areas around the Maribyrnong River. This also accounts for the current climate change guidelines, which are in line with the latest standards and industry best practice set in the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guidelines of 2019. It has been tested against five historic flood events: October 2022, January 2011, September 1993, October 1983 and May 1974. Independently developed by experts in the field Jacobs and peer reviewed, it provides us with the most up-to-date predictive modelling of flood risk in the Maribyrnong River and surrounding areas.
Beyond the context of the Maribyrnong River, Melbourne Water will be updating modelling of all areas under their jurisdiction to include climate change projections up to 2100, and this will be completed by 2026. Accurate forecasting must be reflected in determining the flood areas at risk in Victoria, which is paramount, and modelling gives us the capacity to do just that. Melbourne Water has engaged in community consultation with areas affected, including Kensington, Maribyrnong, Ascot Vale, West Melbourne and Keilor, to ensure residents are aware of identified flood risks in their areas. Property-specific advice such as on floor height and building features that may impact property value should be sought by land surveyors.
Kensington Banks was constructed in the 1990s, designed with a levee and retarding basin that provided the best planning conditions based on the flood data of the day. With more accurate flood data provided by modern technologies and techniques in conjunction with the impacts of climate change in 2024, these conditions need to be reviewed. With all this in mind and the parliamentary flood inquiry yet to make its final report, it is somewhat absurd for this motion to be presented to the Council before any findings or recommendations are made that may or may not be relevant to the Kensington Banks context. Melbourne Water and its members of the independent panel appeared before the committee in May to provide clarification on the updated modelling and provide evidence for consideration. It is, frankly, a bit disrespectful to be making assumptions on the modelling and forecasting before the report is even released, considering the exceptional and tireless work of those involved. At the time of the Kensington Banks development, planning decisions and approvals were made with consideration of the best available flood data in that timeframe. This was entirely appropriate with the planning standards at the time, and these reviews and reclassifications are in line with the planning standards of today.
Doing right by Victorians is providing transparency on how their properties are impacted by flood plains, even if the risks unfortunately change over time due to climate change and updated modelling. This all matters so that Victorians can have safe housing, which in this end is what really matters right now. Housing choice, housing affordability and security through working with industry and communities and increased supply of homes near services that matter to Victorians will ensure that every Victorian has a place to call home in an ever-changing society and landscape.
Eight hundred and sixty of 1400 planning permits for small second homes in properties stuck in the system have now been processed now that planning permits required for this have been removed. We have given priority to major residential developments that have at least 10 per cent affordable housing by granting them access to development facility programs pathways, cutting down time for assessment and approval. We are reforming our planning system, clearing backlogs and reducing decision-making, slashing assessment timeframes from significant development projects from 12 months to eight months under our – (Time expired)
Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:20): I am going to make a short contribution on this. I am not going to be supporting it – not because I do not actually believe in what it is about. I was listening to Mr Batchelor’s contribution before, and there is an inquiry going on that has not yet handed down its report. This is a stunt. Why can’t we wait for the report and get something done? Also, I was reading through the actual text of the motion. We are requiring the Ombudsman to do something – fair enough; but then we are asking for policy changes, compensation, support and proposed measures. My understanding of the Ombudsman is it is about corruption and poor behaviour, all this sort of stuff.
Jeff BOURMAN: Yes, incompetence. Be that as it may, I do not believe it is in their remit to be giving anyone policy advice and dealing with areas of compensation. It also requires them to have at least one day of public hearings. I think the Ombudsman would probably have a lot to say about us requiring all these little details. I would not have a problem necessarily with this if it had come down after the handing down of the report and if it did not have all of this granular detail about what the Ombudsman should and should not do, which is most likely stuff that is not within their purview. I am going to leave it at that.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:22): Worldwide we are seeing more severe floods, bushfires and storms. This is creating uncertainty, costs and distress for communities who live and work in vulnerable areas. Climate change is causing flood risks not just in the Maribyrnong catchment but right across Victoria and right across the globe. The Allan Labor government has invested $10 million to assist councils who have not undertaken their own flood studies to complete this work. It is worth clarifying that there are different regulatory responsibilities between regional Victoria and metropolitan Victoria: local councils translate flood studies into their planning schemes and catchment management authorities in regional Victoria conduct the flood studies or contract the experts to do so. New updated data can inform local planning schemes and related approvals, but that happens only after the flood studies have been completed by the technical experts.
The Victorian budget 2024–25 includes $37 million for communities to assess localised real-time information about flood events and water movement. We recognise that for residents whose homes were not previously considered flood prone, this news can be shocking and very distressing. There is a responsibility to consider all options and assess all risks and data to make the best informed decisions with impacted communities. In relation to the Maribyrnong River, the October 2022 flood was a one-in-50-year event, which is why some areas which have been included in the 2024 modelling were not included in 2022.
We must also be realistic about the current modelling. Current modelling provides the best possible estimates but cannot predict exact flood behaviour, which is influenced by a range of factors. No two floods are the same. I go to the example of South Warrnambool, which is my own community, and over the years I have observed and been peripheral to multiple flood studies in the South Warrnambool area. Each one improves on the previous one both in detail of knowledge and in the technical expertise and the technical capability of testing the hydrology. I want to go into a number of the variables to kind of paint the picture of the number of variables that are in play when it comes to a flood study. A combination of a high rainfall day and an already saturated landscape or a high rainfall day and an absorbent landscape, perhaps after a drought or just after summer, can produce completely different flood or water flow behaviour. Then the impact of rainfall in areas where there are significant riparian zones is different to newly cleared land. Where there are well-developed riparian zones or remnant vegetation, that landscape is more absorbent, the water takes longer to flow down into the soil and less of it ends up in the rivers and streams. In 1947 governments were still providing incentives for landholders to clear land, and with the return of soldiers from the Second World War land was being allocated to soldiers in soldier settlement areas with the incentive of significant land clearing. There is one theory that the particular dynamic that contributed to the high levels of flooding in south-east Victoria at that time was the previous year’s rate of land clearing.
A further variable is the timing of a flood event. Flood areas within estuarine and coastal environments are different again. For example, if a flood occurs at the same time as a high tide, the difference between high tide and low tide can mean the difference between being flooded or not, depending on the other previous variables. Then of course you have got the Easter tides, which are significantly higher tides than usual. If the landscape catchment is already saturated with high rainfall upstream and high rainfall downstream and you have got an Easter tide and you have also got another variable, storm surge, where the ocean in a storm environment pushes forward and comes up the beach or up the rivers, this dynamic can result in an incredibly difficult-to-model dynamic. Even modern technological advancements would struggle to estimate how often that exact scenario would occur in any particular environment.
A further variable to consider and attempt to measure in flood modelling is the level of development in a particular potential flood landscape. Flood risk in an undeveloped, more absorbent landscape may be lower than in a highly developed, less porous landscape. Some of the mitigation actions translated into a local government planning scheme in this scenario can include requirements for minimum porous land on each block: for example, you cannot concrete the whole block, or you must have 15, 20 or 50 per cent of your block of land able to absorb rainfall.
Then you have got another variable, which is the number of tanks that people have on their properties, and that too can have a retarding effect on a flooding scenario. But again, you have got to add all of those other scenarios into the picture before you can actually tell whether or not that is going to impact. I know that a water collection scheme in north-east Warrnambool, which is only a very small distance away from south Warrnambool, because Warrnambool is not that big, certainly has a retarding impact on the south Warrnambool flood study, which not just is good for flood prevention along Russell Creek and the Merri River but also is good for environmental outcomes for water.
The other scenario that I want to raise is the natural landscape, and in South Warrnambool you have a swamp called Kelly Swamp. I apologise for not knowing the Indigenous name to Kelly Swamp, and I will endeavour to find that out. Kelly Swamp acts as a natural retarding basin. All of these things are really worth measuring and finding out about when it comes to trying to estimate what is going to happen in any particular dynamic within a flood area. We do access – and this current study we are talking about on the Maribyrnong has definitely accessed – the best available science, including on climate change, which is an additional variable. Melbourne Water certainly reports that this is the first flood study they have been involved with that has included estimates – best-case estimates or all-case scenario estimates – of climate change into that variable. Then you have got mitigation activities that can look at taking account of the baseline flood-risk scenarios that I just described and then attempt to estimate: if we put a flood wall in, if we did this, if we put backflow mechanisms in stormwater, if we prevented landfilling, would we be able to make the scenario better or worse?
All up, my consideration here is definitely about the complexity, and I think the work that has been done in the space is very good. It does disappoint me that this motion pre-empts the outcome of the flood inquiry. I am a member of that committee as of this year, so I do find this a little bit frustrating, and I share my colleagues’ concerns about the logic behind this motion at this point in time.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:32): I also rise today to make a contribution on notice of motion 460, which has been put before us by Dr Mansfield concerning a very important subject, and that is one that we are very sadly seeing far too much of, which is the impacts of climate change on our cities and our regions. As members may be aware, I grew up in the outer suburbs of Melbourne in a significantly fire-prone area. In January of 2009 the accepted practice was that when a bushfire hit you could leave but most people would stay and defend. You had your bushfire plan, and you would prepare yourself as much as you could to deal with whatever the fire would bring. Then in February of that year we had the Black Saturday bushfires, and everything changed. Very few people after that, certainly in my neighbourhood, would continue with their plans to stay and defend.
The impact of natural disasters such as fires and floods is having a significant effect on this country in particular. We have always been the land of droughts and flooding rains, but what we are seeing in this current generation is an unprecedented level of natural disasters, storms and freak weather events. We saw them again just this year with a freak storm that lashed through southern Victoria and in particular the south-east and South Gippsland causing, very sadly, one loss of life but also incredible amounts of damage – people without power and without phone reception for days and in some cases weeks on end – and this came just after other historic freak storms back in 2021. So too, with the flooding events, particularly in northern Victoria and also in the Kensington area and the Maribyrnong area, in those 2022 floods, we saw what was originally a once-in-100-year event now happening every few years.
The Environment and Planning Committee is doing a very important job at the moment, which is to look at this issue. Indeed different committees deal with all sorts of different work in this place. I note that it is a committee that I am not on. As with many other members in this place, I am on quite a number of committees. I am not personally on the Environment and Planning Committee, so I am one of the ones who is very much looking forward to seeing what that committee has to report on the 2022 floods when it releases its report in just a few weeks time. That committee has spent the best part of this term so far – in fact all of its time in this term so far – looking at this issue. It is important work that needs to be done. I read with interest the interim report, and I am particularly looking forward to seeing what the final report will say and also, critically, what findings and what recommendations it will make, because if we are to have faith in the parliamentary process, we need to entrust it to do the job that we set it up to do.
My colleague Mr Batchelor spoke of his disappointment as the current chair of that committee in terms of seeing the work that that committee is doing effectively undermined by this motion, which is seeking to shortcut the answers, shortcut the results and lead to another inquiry. Perhaps the Greens member who is on that committee – I am afraid I am not sure which member it is – is not satisfied with the outcome, but that is something we should see in a minority report, in the findings, in the recommendations or in the record of votes. I reiterate what my colleague Mr Batchelor said and indeed what others from the crossbench have said as well: we should allow this committee to do its job. If there is further work that needs to be done, then there is further work that needs to be done, and if those recommendations are not sufficiently adopted to the satisfaction of this chamber, then this chamber should look at further referrals, whether they be to the Ombudsman or indeed to another place. I express my disappointment, adding it to Mr Batchelor’s as well, but nevertheless I am very much looking forward to seeing what that committee has to report when it releases that report in just a few weeks.
I note that on the work plan for that committee there is another referral that was put through to that committee, with the support of the government, by the Greens. The next item of business is an inquiry into climate resilience, and that will be a very important inquiry. I spoke in favour of that inquiry in this place and for the reasons that we are discussing today – significant flooding issues happening in areas where floods did not used to happen and the fire risk that we are now seeing not just in the outer, outer outskirts in fact but even in places like Narre Warren, where we have seen fires happen. In those outer suburbs that are not even right on the edge we are seeing an increased fire risk – an increased risk of grassfires and of bushfires. It is a very concerning thing to see as a Victorian and as someone who represents that region in the south-east suburbs which is experiencing those risks. We have been fortunate not to have had extreme flooding in my region, although we did have, as I said, some significant storms, and we have that fire risk as well.
The climate is changing, and I think that goes to another point that has been made earlier as well: it is not the modelling that is changing as much as it is the climate that is changing. The models that we were using 30 years ago are in no way sufficient for what we need to be looking at today in terms of our climate risk. That has to change and that has to adapt. Again, like others in this place have said, I would prefer to follow that science and not undermine and not seek to undercut that scientific modelling. I am also not a hydrologist.
This is important work that needs to be done. In speaking on this motion today, whilst I am disappointed to see this circumvent the committee process and the parliamentary process that we already have in place, I do want to re-emphasise the point that this is something we should be taking very seriously as a chamber, which I believe we do, and as a government, which I believe we do as well. There is always more to be done, and there is always more to be learned. With the climate changing the way it is, we are having to change these models at a rapid rate.
My comments have to be somewhat restricted because I am very much waiting to see what this committee will come back and report to us with and what failings, if any, there are in the modelling that currently exists that that committee may seek to improve. It may say, ‘This is a problem; we’ll fix it,’ and we will have a clear recommendation to government that there is something to be fixed. If that is the case, then I very much look forward to seeing that action take place. But shortcutting that process and referring the matter to the Ombudsman is missing a step. It is missing a step in due process to this Parliament, to this place, and it is missing a step with any recommendations that may be brought up by that committee. You do not serve this issue by doing that.
I note as well, as other speakers have done, that considerable investment has taken place by this government in response to the floods that happened in 2022 already. I will not seek to go through everything in great detail, but we of course have the Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy, which was initially released before the floods in 2016 – the third biannual report of that strategy’s implementation was published in 2022. There is always more work to be done, and from what I see as an outsider in this space, that work is being done.
There have been numerous strategies and numerous flood studies, works and upgrades to levees across Victoria. We had the regional sitting in Echuca just a few weeks ago, and we were able to see and hear from that community. I realise that today is about Kensington, but all communities that are affected by floods deserve our attention, and it was really good to be up there to see and hear firsthand from people in Echuca. I have said in previous contributions that the value for me, and I believe many others in this place, was not so much being able to go there and show them about the Parliament, it was about hearing from them. I know that this parliamentary committee has heard from lots of people – from the experts, from academics, from Melbourne Water and from councils but also from the residents, the people affected by these floods in 2022, both in Northern Victoria and the inner north-west. I am very much looking forward to hearing their perspectives, their views and their calls for action through the Environment and Planning Committee’s report. I will leave my remarks there as I do not have much time left. Again, I note my anticipation of the EPC report and my slight disappointment that we are not waiting to receive it first.
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (11:42): I was not intending to speak to this particular motion, but I do think that it warrants a contribution, as much as anything, for the statewide, nationwide and global challenges that we are facing as a consequence of really unprecedented volatility in climate. As our populations grow we find ourselves moving to areas that were previously not understood to be of a risk profile but that, thanks to contemporary technology, much more intricate data modelling and a better understanding of the way in which land is used and the impact of infrastructure, are now understood to be statistically more vulnerable to flooding events in that situation of climatic volatility.
When we talk about the population growth to the west and the increased vulnerability to grassfire, when we talk about the growth of the populations across our regional centres – the rural centres adjacent to large tracts of land vulnerable to bushfires that start because of lightning strikes and often continue to burn and to cause destruction; in the Black Summer fires we saw 1.7 million hectares of land destroyed – we know that modelling needs to keep pace with the way in which our environment is changing and the impact of population growth and the expansion of the way in which we use our land. This is where modelling comes in as being necessary to understand the impact of climate change and, correspondingly, the opportunities that we have and the responsibilities that we have to mitigate and to manage that risk.
I look to the motion that is on the notice paper today. It reflects the large-scale grief and anger, frustration and despair of communities affected by the Kensington Banks modelling and indeed by the broader impact of the Maribyrnong flooding events. This is one example of the challenges that communities are facing. In Rochester, in Echuca, in Mildura, where we see encroachment, where we see populations growing and developing, we also know the uncertainty inherent in managing, without proper, accurate, contemporaneous data that takes advantage of technology, what the impact of large-scale inundation looks like. There is a lot to do around the way in which governments respond to these challenges: the work that we do to hold our insurers to account, to partner across all levels of government and to take action that not only considers and incorporates the facts and the data from this modelling into decision-making but also provides opportunities to mitigate and to manage into the future.
We know – and I am not a hydrologist; I get a lot of information, briefings and detail from people who are experts, global experts, in this field – that when you have infrastructure that is built and developed and you have inundation, water will behave differently as a consequence of the development of that infrastructure. Population growth has the same impact. We therefore know that it is incumbent upon us, it is our responsibility, to make sure that information continues to be updated over time. The Pagone review is one such review, undertaken by Melbourne Water, which has found that modelling needs to be reviewed every five years and updated every 10 years to provide the best possible reflection of changing environmental circumstances, of changing demographics and of the way in which we use our land.
We also need to understand that this is a statewide problem across a range of different impacts and the risk profile as it changes of natural disaster. Inquiries are important, and that is why we have had a flood inquiry that has been going for some time. There is the climate change adaptation inquiry. There are numerous inquiries into a range of responses to natural disasters.
The thing that I would put to people around this chamber is the work that we need to do is being informed by the Parliament’s work, the interrogation of compliance with existing rules and regulations and the rights of communities and citizens to understand the impact upon them as further information is made available – what that looks like for underfloor and overfloor inundation. A reference to the Ombudsman by reference to what has already happened here invites the conclusion that for every natural disaster that has been experienced or will be experienced over time there is an expectation that a similar inquiry will be the will of the Parliament. I am concerned by that, and I look forward to the inquiries, the public inquiries of Parliaments just like this one, being able to examine the impacts in a way that people – (Time expired)
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:48): I thank the members who have made contributions to this discussion. In particular I would like to thank Mr Mulholland for sharing many of the real-life experiences of residents, who this motion is actually about. I would also like to thank Mr Ettershank for his very measured contribution. I know he has been very closely involved with this issue and the residents in that area, and he was able to provide excellent context for why this referral is required.
We have heard a number of contributions from the government that are saying this is about climate and weather. This is not just about climate change making floods worse; people understand that things change with climate change. This is about a change to the 2024 modelling, which is essentially an admission that the government agencies got this wrong in the first place. But communities, ordinary families, are paying the cost for government mistakes and poor planning. That is what this is about. This is an estate that is only between 10 and 25 years old. We have got families who only bought their homes six months ago that were told that their homes were above the flood level. Now they are told they are not. Families and communities are being let down by these government decisions through no fault of their own. We think that is worthy of looking into.
I make reference to Mr Batchelor’s comment that flood risk is a function of the climate and built environment. The built environment is a direct result of planning decisions that were made by government authorities. There were a lot of references made to the current 2022 floods inquiry. Our understanding is that inquiry is coming to a conclusion. Perhaps those on the committee know otherwise, but that is our understanding. There are issues that will continue to emerge that may be somehow linked to the issue of floods. This issue emerged very recently, too late for that flood inquiry to look at. Some issues that emerge at this stage or beyond will flow into other inquiries like the climate resilience one. Some will need forensic investigation like the one that we have before us today. This is a really significant matter for a huge number of community members. They are distressed, they want answers and they need support, and the concern is that there have been systemic failures here of government agencies.
This chamber is entitled to make a referral to the Ombudsman. These are genuine concerns about government policy failures and failures of government agencies. It is exactly the sort of issue that deserves investigation. It is well within the remit of this chamber to make a referral to an appropriate entity to undertake such an investigation. This chamber is not just here to do what the government wants. It is also exactly what we have an Ombudsman for. Transparency and oversight of government decisions is important for a healthy democracy, and it is disturbing that the government is so ferociously resisting this scrutiny. While I am sure the government might prefer that the Ombudsman had nothing to do, their job is actually to keep government and public organisations in check. That is from the Ombudsman’s website. They do it independently, so to say we are weaponising integrity agencies for political purposes I think is absolutely absurd, as was one of the comments put forward.
If there is nothing to hide in this situation, if the government can stand by its decisions, if it stands by the decisions made by its agencies, then there is nothing to fear here. I think this is a very reasonable thing to do. Given what is occurring and what we are hearing from residents we believe further forensic investigation of this should be undertaken. There should be some comfort to the government that this will be done by an independent entity in the Ombudsman. In any case we hope that the chamber will support this referral so that residents can get the answers that they deserve and that we can restore some confidence in these sorts of processes for future residents not only of this estate but who may be affected by planning decisions made by government and government agencies going forward.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (34): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Noes (3): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick
Motion agreed to.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.