Questions without notice and ministers statements
Water policy
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:03): (709) My question is for the Minister for Water. A fortnight ago a private citizen applied yet again for licences on the Rubicon River to support his proposed private hydro-electricity project. If successful, this would be the first private hydro project in an unregulated waterway in Victoria. The Taungurung Land and Waters Council have been fighting against these licence applications for years. They hold grave concerns for water and country if this project were to go ahead. As water minister, under the Water Act you have the power to step in and request that the Minister for Planning call this matter in or make a decision on this matter. Minister, will you step in and take responsibility for this licensing decision?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:04): Thank you very much for that question. I did not hear the beginning of the question around the waterway that you were referring to, but I have got Taungurung, so I am assuming it relates to the Rubicon hydro project.
Sarah Mansfield: Yes.
Harriet SHING: Excellent – thank you. As you would be aware, VCAT determined that the Goulburn–Murray Water organisation is required to make its decision in relation to the works licence and the take-and-use licence at the same time. That was the only issue that was identified in proceedings, and I have been advised that Goulburn–Murray Water is in fact already updating its processes in this regard. The application process has been going for over 10 years and so, as you have made the chamber aware that you are aware of, there have been a really intricate set of processes involved in that. There have been pages and pages of advice in relation to many parties, including the applicant, the CMA and consultants. Goulburn–Murray Water are the authorising, delegated authority for northern Victoria, including for the Rubicon, and they are best placed to assess all of the information as it relates to the process. They are my delegates, and they are required to assess the application according to their obligations as they are set out in the Water Act 1989 on any proposed works on waterways.
The VCAT determination as it related to the application from Taungurung included concern for, as you would be aware, riparian and aquatic ecosystems; Aboriginal cultural values and use of the waterway; riverine environment and biodiversity associated with the environment; maintenance of environmental water reserves; and proper management of the waterways. You would be aware also of what Taungurung raised when the matter was before VCAT, which I will not go through, given the time that we do not have available.
The VCAT process resulted in a determination that the application was a related application before GMW at the time that it made that decision, and it was required to defer that decision, as you are aware, until such time as the decision under section 67 had been made. It is my intention to continue to enable that process to be undertaken on the ground. Again, I have continued to take advice from Goulburn–Murray Water and also to engage with Taungurung in relation to these matters as they have become areas of legal contest. This will no doubt be something that needs to be worked through in a way that involves face-to-face conversations. I am very happy to update you as that work continues, because as I have said earlier and as you well appreciate, it is a really intricate process with many years of history and we do need to make sure that the relevant considerations under the act are part of any decisions that are taken that will affect take-and-use or the application and administration of a licence.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:07): I thank the minister for that response, and I will take it from that that you will continue to have Goulburn–Murray Water use their delegated authority and not use your authority to intervene in this matter. But the Water Act does not consider new uses of the waterways, so the guidelines for take-and-use licences do not really apply to this specific type of private hydro-electric proposal. I have been told that DEECA have promised a policy review to water authorities to assist them in making decisions about these sorts of matters, but that policy review has not yet happened. By ignoring this issue the department has I guess continued to contribute to the ongoing uncertainty that the Taungurung people are experiencing about this, so why hasn’t DEECA done its job and created a policy regarding private hydro-electricity on unregulated systems, as promised?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:08): Thank you for that supplementary. As you have quite rightly indicated in that supplementary, DEECA is undertaking a review of policies and regulations as they apply to licences issued under both section 51 and section 67 of the Water Act. That licensing review project is proposing to establish new licensing regulations and updated guidelines, and that is intended to streamline the way in which existing arrangements operate and to increase clarity on what is expected of delegates in the exercise of their delegated decision-making authority. It is proposed that those new regulations will be prepared for commencement next year, 2025, with new guidelines to be published to support the introduction of those new regulations. The VCAT decision on sequencing of decisions on works licences and take-and-use will be included in these new guidelines, but they are also already being dealt with by Goulburn–Murray Water with the assistance of DEECA in that regard, if that provides you with some further detail.