Tuesday, 7 March 2023

Water policy

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:09): (58) My question is to the Minister for Water. In the lead-up to last week’s Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting, you made it clear that Victoria would continue to block water purchases for the Murray River’s environment. But while the Victorian government has continued to block these water purchases, Victorian farmers have continued to sell water to multinational corporations, overseas pension funds and institutional investors. My question to the minister is: how much water has been sold to these corporate players while Victoria has opposed purchases for river health?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Equality) (12:10): I thank the member for this question. There are a couple of things in the question itself which I want to address, because fundamentally the Murray-Darling Basin plan is an intricate set of policy frameworks. It is an intricate set of work between different jurisdictions including South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland, as you would well know. There are existing rules as to how it is that people can trade water; irrigators can sell, for example, to other irrigators. The way in which trades occur is recorded under the water register, and you would know from previous discussions about amendments and refinements to the legislation that volumes of trade over and above a certain quantum need to be recorded under the Victorian Water Register.

What we are in the process of doing is creating a better level of accountability and transparency on the way in which water is traded. We do want to make sure that we are balancing the competing interests of various stakeholders as we implement our work under the Murray-Darling Basin plan. We are absolutely determined to make sure that there is accountability and transparency, including in the way in which water may be sought to be moved from an allocation under licence to irrigators on the one hand through to other purposes for use of that resource on the other. So there are a range of components to this particular part of your question that I just want to go to because of the complexity of the issues. I am really happy to provide you with a range of packages of information to assist you on how to understand the way in which that water has been traded, but licensing arrangements are something that we have worked really hard to provide transparency on. We have also worked through a process of water compliance to improve the way in which metering compliance and enforcement takes place in Victoria. There was a review undertaken by Des Pearson which found that Victoria is actually doing a power of work to lead the nation on water compliance and enforcement to make sure that those rules are complied with.

We do want to make sure that we are also talking with the Commonwealth and with other jurisdictions. The water in the basin does not respect state boundaries in the way that we might understand Victorian and other jurisdictions to operate with different rules and regulations. So this is where again it is important that we can operate across state boundaries to understand what those pressures are for water users; what irrigators are looking for; the changing nature of trades, particularly as we move to hotter and drier climates; and what to do about a system which we all want to see operating in a transparent, accountable and fair way as far as allocations go now and into the future. I hope that provides you with some context. Of course I am happy to provide you with more information if you would like it.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:13): I thank the minister for her answer, and I will take her up on that offer to obtain some more detailed information about the trading system and licensing. The state of Victoria has actively blocked environmental water purchasing despite overwhelming scientific and economic analysis that shows open tender purchases are the most efficient, cost-effective and practical way to return water to the environment, and yet for nearly two decades the Victorian water department has wrongly insisted that expensive taxpayer-funded projects such as the current Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project and on- or off-farm efficiency works are the best way to return water to the environment. My supplementary question to the minister is: why is the government relying solely on the department’s advice while ignoring the scientific and economic analysis that favours tender purchases?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Equality) (12:14): Thank you very much for that. President, I would seek your guidance on the extent to which that supplementary flows from the substantive question, if you will excuse the pun on flowing. I am really happy, though, without perhaps interfering with any ruling you might make, President, to provide the member with additional information once you have determined that issue. Do you want to rule on it now?

The PRESIDENT: No. I am finding it hard to rule that there might not be a link between the substantive and the supplementary. I know it is loose, but I call on you if you want to answer.

Harriet SHING: I am very happy to, President, thank you. I am just wondering about the clock. There is a fair bit to say on environmental water, and it is one of those things which I think is really important. We know that buybacks do not actually assist in the way in which a number of stakeholders would see. Buybacks actually drive up the price of water, and they reduce the volume of water which is available in the consumptive pool. We know that this is something which then impacts upon communities, including those communities that rely upon secure water sources to meet the challenges of seasonal primary production.

The Murray-Darling Basin is one of Australia’s food bowls, and we do need to provide that consistency of the resource and its availability. We do not need buybacks in order to in fact deliver environmental outcomes. I made this really clear at the MinCo that I attended last week, and I have also made clear the fact that environmental water simply returned to the river and rising river levels do not in fact deliver the environmental benefit that happens when you water a flood plain, for example, and you mimic those natural flows. Again, I am really happy to provide you with additional information if you would like it.

The PRESIDENT: I note that former member Mr Ondarchie is in the chamber.