Thursday, 18 May 2023

Bills

Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jaclyn Symes:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:00): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. In doing so I pay tribute to the work done by our shadow minister Tim McCurdy in the other place and his interest and commitment to work in this area. I do note that this bill is a minor and technical bill in the sense that it fundamentally just delays, and – it is worth reading this – amends the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021:

(i) to extend the last possible date for a provision of that Act to come into operation …

(ii) 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

(iii) … other minor and technical amendments …

It is, as I say, a very small act, but it is one that we are certainly not opposing, and we understand the reason why the government is bringing this act forward. It does clarify and make changes to the place-of-take legislation, which provides a new approach to protect the rights of water holders and provide assurances in the case of shortfalls. It alleviates the challenges posed by the Barmah Choke and the delivery of water to water holders further down the Murray. These provisions we certainly do not oppose. We certainly see the value and sense in them.

It substitutes a new section about the details that need to be recorded in the water register, and it provides a more clearly defined idea of the information that will be kept for water rights holders and place-of-take approvals. Clause 12 is related to fees accompanying the place-of-take applications, thus updating the previous amendment to better reflect the day-to-day operations and processes used, as multiple applications can be made each day, and it allows the prescribed fees to be lumped together. There is a change to the definition of ‘interstate water’ and how it is classified. Certainly there has been significant consultation by the opposition on this matter with groups like the almond growers, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the water brokers association and the Goulburn–Murray irrigation district leadership.

Obviously water is a very significant issue for our state and through the Murray–Darling Basin, and the Murray–Darling Basin is our major water catchment here in that sense for so much of our agricultural activity. It is important, I think, to note that there have been huge water volumes in this recent period of flooding, and we are at high capacity and over capacity in almost every one of our storages. The amount of water flowing down has been very significant, so we are actually at an unusual point historically. It is not unknown, I might add, but we are not where we were some years ago when water was in such short supply.

The floods have obviously had a huge effect across large areas of northern Victoria, and many communities are still recovering. I think that our thoughts across the chamber are with those people who have suffered so severely. We note that they need every bit of support that can be provided by the state government and indeed the federal government and local support as well. The impact on many of the economies has been very significant, and we are conscious of the need to really support the recovery. I welcome the fact that this chamber will go to northern Victoria at an appropriate time. I think that that is important symbolism and an opportunity to show that we are concerned and focused on supporting the people that have been impacted by these natural events and natural disasters.

I do also note that in some FOI documents that we have obtained the minister has written to the federal minister seeking delays in certain projects, and that is quite legitimate given what has happened with the flooding that has occurred. The ability to complete projects and complete committed projects has been impacted by the floods. We understand that, and people in many communities are not in a position to follow through with many of the steps that would be in fact needed.

The history of the water catchment through the Murray in Victoria is a great history and a history of achievement. Victoria has led the way in using the water for effective agricultural and horticultural production remarkably, and we have built very significant industries in some of our northern regions. I pay tribute to the pioneers who did that work, but I also pay tribute to those on the ground today and those who have been savvy enough, nimble enough, to build markets overseas and elsewhere for our agricultural and horticultural products, which obviously are dependent on the security and predictability of the water supply. To the extent that this bill adds to some of that security we see the value in it.

I should note that water is something that we well understand. The flood inquiry has got significant work to do in this next period, and I welcome the fact that this chamber has established an inquiry to look at the floods. It will look at the matters around preparation and the matters around levees and the support for reconstruction that is needed in many of the areas of northern Victoria. It will look at the pre-planning, and I think that there is a lot for us to still learn to do much better in many areas. Things were not up to scratch. It is not my plan today to make this a highly political contribution, but I do note that there are significant steps and learnings that can be understood and applied better.

In the city we have seen the terrible spectacle with Maribyrnong and the impact on so many people. It does appear that government culpability is right at the centre of that – decisions made by planners and decisions made by government that have exposed families and people to really very significant impacts through that flooding. Arguably some of these outcomes are actually government induced, so these decisions that have been made by planners need very, very close scrutiny. The chamber has obviously talked at length about the establishment of that flood inquiry and the process around the establishment of that flood inquiry. I think it is important to note that Melbourne Water was the agency responsible for establishing the flood inquiry, but it, as an agency, was a body that had responsibility for the management of these floods, so you really had an agency inquiring into aspects of its own performance, and there are some problems with that. They did try to put Mr Wimbush into the chair of that. I have no issue with Mr Wimbush. I have seen him at work on a number of points. He is a very experienced planner at Planning Panels Victoria. He is a senior and respected person there. He was very clear that he had a conflict of interest. He declared that. I have seen those documents. He declared that up-front. God knows what the bureaucrats at Melbourne Water and God knows what the minister and the minister’s office thought they were doing allowing that to go forward. I mean, they knew. They all knew. They were up to their neck in it, and they made a series of serious mistakes. In the end they have had to take a different tack, and I am hopeful that sensible outcomes will be achieved there.

I do note that the parliamentary committee that is looking at these matters, the flood inquiry, will be independent, and I hope that it does have the intestinal fortitude to really confront these issues. I know the government will not want to be supportive and fulsome in its honesty with that committee, but I hope Ms Shing, the minister, does attend, I hope her staff attend, I hope that the bureaucrats from Melbourne Water intend that inquiry and I hope that they are honest. I hope that the inquiry does not encounter resistance, does not encounter obfuscation and does not encounter an attempt to nobble its ability to undertake the work that it needs to do. I must say, in terms of a flush out of Melbourne Water and the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, or DEECA, as it is now – the constantly changing department – we do need some really thorough thought about how that area is structured and which bureaucrats have levels of responsibility for a number of these key points. We cannot have it when government planning failures are directly responsible for the damage that has been done to so many people, and I do hope that the inquiry gets to the bottom of it.

I do hope the minister is prepared to become more candid and more honest about her position and the involvement of her and her office in the establishment of the so-called Wimbush inquiry. It is very clear when you look at the documents that her staff were asked multiple times to clear details – multiple times. The emails came in for approval. They went back with ‘No, wait. Can’t do it’ or they went back with ‘Make these changes’. You have got directions from the minister’s office, and yet she and her staff are trying to say that they did not have any responsibly. Well, it is bunk, of course.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, you are flirting close to making an accusation against a sitting member, which you know you have to do under a substantive motion, not a second-reading speech. I would ask you to consider that as you continue your contribution.

David DAVIS: President, thank you. The water legislation is an important bill. Obviously, it is oversighted by the Minister for Water in her area of responsibility under the administrative orders. Obviously, our water authorities across the state, whether they be Goulburn–Murray Water in the north or Melbourne Water in the metropolitan area, have significant responsibilities, as do our catchment management authorities and other bodies for the management of water in this state. I think it is extremely important to see that our management of these resources is intimately tied up not just with the environmental outcomes that we all want to see but also with our economic future. That economic future is, as I have alluded to, both agriculture and horticulture north of the divide in particular, but it is also the towns – their water resources, their safety from flooding – in so many areas across the north of the state but equally in metropolitan Melbourne.

I am happy to conclude my contribution by again recording my sadness at what happened during those floods, by wishing the people impacted well and by hoping that the flood inquiry established through this chamber is able to take the steps that it needs to flush out the problems within our government system here but also within the bureaucracy. This task is an important one. As I have said, the minister also wrote to Tanya Plibersek, the federal minister, seeking some delays on completing a number of projects, and I understand the need for those steps given the huge impact on people in northern Victoria through the flood. The bill will go forward. It is a modest bill. It is not something that we oppose, but we will watch the implementation closely.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:15): Today I rise to contribute to the debate on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The bill aims to clarify several provisions related to the framework, such as the place-of-take approvals, to ensure its smooth operation. It aims to avoid unintended consequences and ensure that the intent of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 is delivered. This legislation is also what I often talk about: good legislation, well thought out, with practical and clear implications.

Victoria is a state and ours is a country of droughts and floods, so we must take great care in the management of our precious water resource. Our land has suffered through drought and floods many times, and while the flora and fauna have had millions of years to adapt, we are yet to. Historically, water rights have been a source of worry and concern for some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. Water rights should be a concern for all Victorians as they impact many areas of our lives, and they are vital particularly to rural Australians, who must deal with the immediate consequences of them every day. The people affected by this will ensure that our flood systems continue to function.

Victorian rivers such as the Murray and the Goulburn support diverse ecosystems and create economic value for rural communities, so it is important for all Victorians that we do everything in our power to protect these waterways and to ensure that they can be used well into the future. The Victorian Water Act 1989 is landmark legislation in water management globally and has significantly impacted the state’s water usage and management of water resources. The act is in many ways the best possible response to the concerns about sustainability in an area faced with a growing population and an increased demand for water. By establishing a framework for the use of water resources Victoria at the time was able to ensure that our water resources were managed to world-class standard, and we have been able to see it with our own eyes.

Legislation like this not only works but creates the framework needed to continually improve the use of waterways in Victoria. Just as importantly, the Water Act includes provisions which ensure that Indigenous cultures’ values are considered, as well as ensuring that the traditional Indigenous use of the waterways is not disrupted. The legislation ensures that Indigenous values and knowledge are considered in the management of water resources in Victoria. Indigenous knowledge of the land is in many ways far deeper than our own and goes back many thousands of years. By supplementing Indigenous knowledge with modern technology’s ability to map and predict the weather and changes in the waterways, we can better map the actions needed to protect our rivers.

The Murray and Goulburn rivers are an essential part of the life of all Victorians, whether they know it or not. The proper management of the waterways is an important part of this legislation. Water systems can be fragile at the best of times, and while the use of waters for agricultural irrigation cannot and should not be stopped, we must carefully balance the health of ecosystems and the conservation of the waterways in Victoria with their use for irrigation. Victorian farmers have been consulted in the development of this legislation, and the greatest efforts have been made to ensure that the proper management of the water in Victoria has minimal impact on agriculture in Victoria.

While it is an unfortunate reality that Victorian farmers must make difficult choices with their resources when there are times of scarcity, the Andrews government has put in place many measures to prevent any harm. Victoria has robust drought preparedness measures and a response framework which can help alleviate the effects of droughts at all levels. It includes support for Victorian farmers, who can suffer dearly from the effects of drought, and ensures that the response to drought is proportional to the needs of the area. While the water bill does try to alleviate the impacts of drought, the Victorian government has also ensured that people affected will still be protected. To do this effectively Victoria requires legislation which can be both enforced readily and flexible enough that it can adapt to the current changing conditions that we face.

Water management cannot be static; it must be adaptable so that we are not caught off guard by rapidly changing conditions, either by the needs of the population or by the changing environment. Climate change is a major hurdle for our waterways going forward, not only reducing the water available to the rivers but also increasing the demand for water for irrigation. As our climate changes, we need more water for the continuation of agriculture in Victoria. This will require increasingly careful management of our waterways along with the implementation of new water-saving technologies to ensure the health of these rivers.

The bill seeks to ensure that the waterways are managed to the best possible degree well into the future. The proposed amendment to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 will ensure that the bill’s powers and applications are in line with the original intent of the Water Act 1989. It will also ensure that the terminology used in the acts is unambiguous so the legislation can be utilised to its full extent. The proposed amendments will make changes to who, when and how much in relation to the taking of water to ensure the Water Act does not allow for overconsumption of water and the destruction of our waterways. These amendments are an important part of continuing commitments made by the original Water Act towards protection of Victoria’s waterways.

The bill will also delay the default commencement of the new framework until July 2024. This will ensure there is enough time to engage with flood-affected communities, to consult and to ensure that the rules and regulations are reasonable. For many working people in the agricultural sector, water rights are a matter of life and livelihood, and water shortages can destroy people’s lives. As such, it is crucial that we work responsibly together to manage these resources.

The Water Act 1989 ensured that water resources would be used fairly and efficiently. Proper utilisation of these resources is essential, and minimising waste is also important. With limited water resources, the efficient use of them is best weighed to ensure that we do not overuse our water resources. The original act also ensured water was properly conserved. This protected against certain risks to our water resources, and it was delivered through a framework of community and Indigenous involvement in planning. The system of water allocation which managed who can draw water and what quantity was a crucial tool in preserving our rivers, and in 1989 it was an excellent step to protect our waterways, but we must do more.

The Murray River is a critical part of the livelihood of many Victorians, and we must protect it. We must ensure its best management. We cannot risk the livelihoods of farmers right across northern Victoria. While we cannot control the management of the Murray River outside Victoria, we can ensure that within Victoria we manage the waterways to the greatest extent possible, and we can also work alongside the Murray–Darling Basin Authority and other Murray states as collaboratively as possible to improve delivery risks. Ensuring that the legislation is up to date and fit for purpose goes a long way in achieving these goals.

There have been significant changes across the southernmost part of the Murray–Darling Basin over the past 10 to 20 years. That includes more water being delivered to the Murray users downstream of the Barmah Choke while at the same time the capacity of the choke has been decreasing. Shortfalls can be because of droughts and prolonged heatwaves, but they can be made much worse when the waterways are mismanaged. With climate change expected to increase the number of hot days, peaks in daily demand will exacerbate delivery challenges, which will likely continue to grow. When this occurs water can be delivered and used at these waterways where irrigation can lead to low capacity. This can be devastating to the local ecosystem. Shortfalls in critical periods can devastate agriculture and can within a short time ruin an entire harvest. That is why scarcity requires the strictest regulations. I can remember all too well the millennium drought and the impacts on our state.

As climate change brings longer and hotter dry periods, the stress on the water system will continue to grow. Proper management of this requires every state and territory to work together and cooperation between the government and local communities, who have deep knowledge of their local ecosystems and how they are used. Different areas within the state require a unique approach to water management. A farmer in the Goulburn–Broken catchment area uses water very differently to those in East Gippsland. This means that we must consider the many ways in which water is used.

In recent years we have seen the effects of the overdraining of water from our most important waterways and how it is made worse by climate change. Not only that, but in many other ways have things changed. New technologies such as desalination have changed how we must approach water management, and who knows what other changes will come in the decades. So these amendments must be the stepping stones to improved water rights in Victoria. There will also have to be a cultural shift towards viewing the water resources of Victoria not as a thing to be exploited but as an integral part of our state to be properly managed. I am sure all Victorians want to ensure we have access to this critical part of Australian ecology, as well as everything it supports, well into the future. I am incredibly proud of working to ensure this bill continues to support Victoria.

In the last election our side of this chamber promised that we would be a government for all Victorians, and that is what this legislation ensures. We are getting on with this bill, even though it is small, because we need to provide certainty for those who use water. That means all Victorians but particularly those who suffered through the October 2022 floods and are still feeling the effects to this day. In fact this bill was not considered before these floods. As this house knows all too well from last sitting week’s debate and in fact from much of this term of the Parliament, the devastation of the flood event is real and it is tragic. Thousands of Victorian farmers and water users were impacted in the declared systems where the place-of-take approvals framework will be implemented. These farmers deal with enough.

Before I end today I want to discuss what the water shortfall is. It is when the water cannot be delivered when there is water needed, even when the water is entitled to be used, whether by irrigators or the environment. It happens when river operators cannot deliver water to water users. This might happen during a heatwave, or the long distances from dams might mean water cannot be delivered in time. In December 2022 our government published the Victorian River Murray Shortfall Response Plan to ensure a coordinated response to any shortfall events in the Murray system. We can be as comprehensive as possible, but this place-of-take approvals framework strengthens compliance in this event. It means that if anyone takes more than their approved allocation during the shortfall, they will be punished. It is vital that these technical changes in the bill allow for market transparency. We need an accountable, fair water market, one that gives public access to the right information, the important information about the operation of the water market. So I am proud the Labor Andrews government is improving accountability and transparency in our water market. This is on top of the extensive work that we are doing to ensure strict compliance is maintained. We must make clear that in Victoria we are all in this together, and we will not tolerate non-compliance with our water laws.

Finally, we are working closely with communities right across Victoria, whether it be traditional owners, farmers, irrigators or residents, to support them through the flood recovery. The former Minister for Water in the other place, recently retired Minister for Water Minister Neville, and Minister Symes when she was Minister for Agriculture did the hard work on this. They attended the community round tables in Tatura, worked collaboratively with the Victorian Farmers Federation peak body and raised concerns at the ministerial council in Canberra. We are all in this for the long haul, as we know this is a long-term issue and one we must all work together through. I commend the amendments to the house.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:28): I rise today to speak to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, and as we have heard already in this chamber, this bill’s primary intention is to delay the implementation date of place-of-take approvals by 12 months. The bill also makes some technical changes which support the functioning of these new approvals. I want to say thank you for the work of the departmental and ministerial staff, particularly Rose, Alieta and Georgia, who answered our many questions on the topic during briefings. We appreciate your collegiality in engaging with us in this space.

The Greens support this bill in its acknowledgement that disaster recovery is ongoing for our regional and rural communities affected by the 2022 flooding event and that drought events are increasing. We agree that we must protect our precious water during these shortfall periods. We acknowledge the impact of last year’s flooding events on our state. They have been reminders yet again of what is so special about our regional communities: resilience, care and compassion in the face of catastrophe. These communities endured yet another natural disaster and continue to rebuild with hope and strength in the face of an uncertain future where climate change is our reality.

If we were not already aware that we are living amidst a climate crisis, 2022 should have been a wake-up call. Australia experienced five major flooding events. We lost upwards of 30 human lives and saw widespread destruction of precious ecosystems. Planning for a future in which a changing climate is our reality must be the focus of our government. This means ending all new coal and gas projects, streamlining our renewable energy transition and investing in community-level climate change and disaster mitigation – not after the next flooding event, millennium drought or worse. We need action now. The Greens are founded on a history of fighting for our waterways, and the Victorian Greens will continue to do that. Our waterways are living beings, but they are facing a death sentence due to overextraction, exploitation, corporate greed, corruption, mismanagement and blatant disregard for cultural and environmental needs. While Labor and the coalition appear to be united in supporting water policy which prioritises corporate interests, the Greens will continue to advocate for the interests of our environment and our regional communities.

Place-of-take approvals are yet another framework patched onto a broken system. I welcome the government’s acknowledgement that rationing is needed to protect our environment and our communities during droughts, but this is yet another example of the way in which water legislation is reactive and points to the need for major reform in the way in which we treat our rivers. Water in rivers has been turned into a market. Volumes of water are assigned a dollar value, commodified and traded as though water can be neatly dissected from the land and the life it supports. Huge amounts of water are traded every day by speculators with no connection to the water itself to make money, potentially increasing the price of water for those who actually need it. This colonial, capitalist construction of water dissects it from the land and from the lives that it supports, including our own.

I commend the government on the Water Is Life: Traditional Owner Access to Water Roadmap, and I would particularly like to point out part B, the statements from traditional owners demonstrating the inextricable connections between water, land, air, all living things and culture. How do we put a price on that? Unpicking this mess and moving back to a holistic understanding of water that existed for tens of thousands of years in this country is perhaps an almost impossible task given how heavily modified and exploited our rivers are and how entrenched the market model is, but a starting point is increased transparency so at the very least we have a clearer view of what is going on in that market.

It has been broadly acknowledged that the water market is opaque relative to other markets. The lack of transparency creates information asymmetry and mistrust in the system. There have been several reports and recommendations to governments regarding this issue, and we recognise that late last year the federal government committed to implementing the Murray–Darling Basin Water Market Reform road map. With the legislation before us we are disappointed to see that the Victorian government has yet again missed the opportunity to make major reforms to the transparency of our water market. The 2021 bill implemented stronger deterrence to water theft, including revised compliance mechanisms, and it also introduced that the water register must include information regarding individuals along with corporations who hold 2 per cent of a declared system. That simply does not go far enough.

Let me take a moment to step the chamber through what the Labor government’s so-called water market transparency reforms mean in practice. Currently the median high-reliability water share in northern Victoria is 6.8 megalitres. This accounts for 0.00027 per cent of high-reliability water shares in northern Victoria. However, at present the Labor government’s regulations are only to release information for water holders with 2 per cent of water allocations within any given system, so at present the public is only able to access information on those corporations that own 10,000 – yes, 10,000 – times the amount of water shares as compared with the average water holder. The holders of 2 per cent or more of a declared water system are unsurprisingly few, and some of those holders are also fairly unsurprising. They include the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, important players in ensuring we have environmental flows that ensure river health. They also include some large corporate investors, and a quick Google search of these water holders comes up with terms such as ‘institutional investors’, ‘asset managers’ or ‘corporate trust’. What this shows is that water is being treated like shares to be bought and sold.

In 2021 an ACCC report revealed that institutional investors made up about 11 per cent of water shares across six market exchange platforms, yet the only information we have publicly available is about those that own 10,000 times that of the average water holder. Who is advocating for the environment in this economic market? Where are the voices of traditional owners, small producers and regional communities? The water market is opaque, and this government’s reforms are piecemeal. That is why we will be introducing amendments that constitute stronger reforms to water market transparency, and I would ask that these amendments are circulated now if possible.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will speak further to these amendments during the committee stage, but in summary while we have no objection to the changes in the bill, there is so much more that could be done to care for our river systems. Large volumes of water are owned and traded by entities that have no connection to the land or waterways. They are simply in it to make money, and there is very little information available about who these entities are. The Greens will continue to push for greater transparency around our rivers so we can safeguard our communities and smaller water holders such as our traditional owners and agricultural landholders.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (10:36): It is my pleasure today to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, and the Nationals do not oppose this bill. The government introduced the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act into Parliament in 2021, and they have not been able to roll out the changes by the legislated deadline of 1 July 2023, and due to the floods and low uptake of the initial consultation they need more time to consult and inform stakeholders and those affected about the place-of-take changes. The main provision of this bill is to amend the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 to allow the place-of-take changes to be implemented by June 2024 at the latest. Further, it clarifies and makes minor changes to place-of-take legislation, which provides a new approach to protect the rights of water holders and provide assurances in the case of shortfalls. These changes will also alleviate the challenges posed by the Barmah Choke and the delivery of water to water holders further down the Murray.

Water is such a critical part of the lives of many thousands of people in my electorate of Northern Victoria Region that it deserves to be discussed well in this house. Most of us know only too well the importance that water has for the economic wellbeing of our rural and regional communities, but water management is an extremely complex issue, and I am very grateful to my Nationals colleagues for their understanding and advocacy in this area. Tim McCurdy is Shadow Minister for Water, and he is a former irrigator and still lives on the Murray. We need to balance irrigation rights, town use, consumptive uses, recreation on the rivers and the environment, and as my colleague the member for Gippsland South put it so neatly:

This legislation … 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.

The bill aims to protect existing water users’ rights to have water delivered down rivers and empower water users to manage their own delivery risks. There are lots of different producers that depend on irrigation, including almond growers, citrus growers, table grape and wine grape growers, and this legislation provides a way to balance their needs, especially on hot days when everyone wants to irrigate on the same day. I grew up on a horticulture farm, and I remember many Christmas Days when my dad was out irrigating to keep the plants alive. This bill is essentially a chance for the government to spend more time updating the introduction of the place-of-take approvals. This will allow further discussion with the irrigation community, particularly those people downstream of the Barmah Choke on the Murray system.

The Barmah Choke is an interesting phenomenon. It is a narrow section of the Murray River that runs through the Barmah–Millewa forest on the Victoria–New South Wales border. Although it is known as the Barmah Choke, it is actually made up of three key flow-constriction points – the Tocumwal Choke, the Barmah Choke and the Edward Choke. Trade is restricted downstream of Cobram and upstream of Echuca. In fact the choke restricts the flow of the Murray River to just around 7000 megalitres per day downstream. This is the lowest flow in any stretch of the Murray. It limits the delivery of irrigation water during periods of peak demand, generally in spring and summer. Trade from above the Barmah Choke to below the choke is restricted to protect the delivery of water downstream. 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, it is really important. That is what this legislation is addressing, particularly for people who are downstream of the choke, because of that 7000-megalitre restriction. How that water is used and managed is what this legislation addresses, and we do need this sort of legislation to come in to ensure that if we face significant challenges with the delivery of water down the Murray system in the future, everyone’s rights are considered.

This bill does clarify some sections of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021. It protects the existing rights of Victorian water users and provides a bit more flexibility to manage their own delivery, and this is a good thing. But of course no discussion about water would be complete without looking at buybacks, and unfortunately I notice the idea of buybacks seems to be creeping back onto the agenda lately at the federal level. Many people are rightly concerned and for good reason. My colleague the member for Mildura Jade Benham gave a very good example of how water buybacks destroyed the small town of Tresco near Lake Boga. She said when water buybacks came along, desperate farmers sold off their water. The farmland became unviable, and tragically people walked off their land, leaving Tresco looking like a Third World country. Buybacks also place more pressure on irrigators that remain and bear the increased cost of keeping irrigation channels open. I have spoken with many primary producers across the region who cannot understand why water was unbundled from the land and that people who do not use it can trade in it to make money, but that is a matter for another day.

Certainly, it is very strange to be considering water buybacks for environmental use when we have had floods in recent times. In October we saw floods devastate a lot of northern Victoria; over 63 local government areas across the state were flooded. Looking at the aerial shots, the amount of water – the volume that just stretched for mile after mile – was incredible. For lots of primary producers across the region, their farms were inundated with floodwater for weeks and weeks. I remember trying to drive across roads, and roads right across state were cut off in so many parts. There were people whose homes were destroyed and are still without housing, waiting for insurance companies to finalise arrangements; there are restrictions on building supplies that are affecting the industry. It has really been a very difficult period for so many towns, especially in Rochester, where people are still living at the relief centre – and this is over six months now since the floods took place. I remember hearing a story of a man who went with his son out in a dinghy to help neighbours where stock losses were significant and about the heartache for those families. Others had to sell stock because they had no ability to feed them as well. It was a very, very difficult period. There were helicopter supplies having to get to places that were stranded.

We know that the flood inquiry is taking place – the parliamentary inquiry which I am part of; I am on that committee. I really do encourage people who had an experience of the floods from all different angles and involvements, whether they were part of an agency that was involved in the floods or responding, whether they were part of the local council or whether they are residents that were impacted, if they want, to share their stories of that impact. It is really important for the committee to get that feedback so that we can look at what can be done better as we prepare for floods in the future. Submissions to the flood inquiry close on 5 June, so to find out more you can go to the Victorian parliamentary website.

But as we know, whilst we speak of floods, dry times will come again, and it is very important that we manage our water resources effectively. We know that across regional Victoria primary producers produce the food that we enjoy every day, and they are exporting top-quality produce around the world, so it is essential that we manage the water as a resource to enable that to happen. So while we do not oppose this bill, we still have genuine concerns about the management of water in Victoria. More could be done and should be done for irrigators and communities who rely on this water.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:45): I am pleased to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which is intended to clarify and strengthen water delivery rights and make some minor amendments to the Water Act 1989. The most significant element of this bill is its timing. The bill will delay the default commencement of the new framework from July 2023 to July 2024. This 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 work for the agriculture sector and to provide irrigators sufficient time to prepare for the commencement of the framework.

Water is fundamental to our lives – to plant and animal life cycles and the health of our planet. It is a fundamental element of our places and our social and cultural lives. It is fundamental to industry, tourism and our economy. Emphasised in this bill is its essential importance to the agriculture industry. Water is essential for our health and wellbeing, literally able to make a difference between life and death. It is one of the world’s most precious commodities, and due to climate change it is increasingly unpredictable; hence the need for thoughtful, considered, commonsense regulation of our water to safeguard our future. Across our nation those with access to water rights seek to safeguard their portion, and there is also an increasing understanding that we need to maximise the potential of our water supplies, using them most when there is surplus and leveraging caution during dry times.

In the face of climate change Victoria under the Andrews Labor government has been leading the nation, working towards the best possible water reforms for our systems and regulations. Water for Victoria was launched by the former Minister for Water Lisa Neville in August 2016. Since then significant progress has been made in meeting the challenges of climate change and population growth and taking action to ensure our water system is modern, efficient, future focused and affordable. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the work done, as my predecessors have, by the previous minister Ms Neville in the launch of the Water for Victoria policy, with each of the chapters focusing on key variables, in particular agriculture, climate change, communities, water for urban environments, trading rules and reform initiatives. Among those it includes initiating progress on gender diversity within the water sector as well as initiating progress on inclusion of Indigenous communities in the economy of water. That work was initiated prior to the Gender Equality Act 2020 and proved to be very leading in the gender space. I thank former Minister Neville for her work.

Water for Victoria established an approach which focuses on strengthening local relationships, putting community at the centre of decision-making, and the delivery of priority water projects for Victoria’s cities, towns and regions. It is being implemented in a spirit of collaboration with water corporations, catchment management authorities, the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, traditional owner groups, local government, community and water users, in particular the agriculture sector.

The bill we address here today continues the commonsense and community-engaged reform. It will clarify several provisions related to the new place-of-take approvals framework to ensure its smooth operation in line with the intent of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 and avoid unintended consequences. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of hot days and the length of warm spells, causing peaks in daily demand. This is already most apparent across the southern-connected Murray–Darling Basin over the last 10 to 20 years. The place-of-take approvals will give clarity and protect existing water users’ rights to take water during a shortfall. This will also give users flexibility to manage their own delivery risks.

Importantly, the place-of-take approvals manage approvals to take water and delivery rights in declared systems, such as the Murray River system, where there are increasing delivery risks. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action has worked closely with Goulburn–Murray Water, Lower Murray Water and Southern Rural Water to make sure systems and processes are updated for them to manage their customers’ place-of-take approvals when the new framework comes into effect.

Southern Rural Water, in my part of the world, will not be impacted as much by this new legislation as it is not a declared system and due to the fact that there is no current shortage of water and there are very few dams, unlike the major irrigation systems in the north of our state. That being said, it does give all irrigators of water the opportunity to be more informed of their rights. Water transparency rights, which I will touch on later, will also benefit water corporations such as Southern Rural Water, as information will be available on websites.

The changes will also provide for a more effective and consistent enforcement and compliance regime for non-compliance with the conditions of taking water. These changes mean that pumps or outlets where existing water users take water will be described as an approved place of take. It is as simple as that. Entitlement holders’ existing delivery rights will be maintained.

Where delivery risks are increasing, the Minister for Water will be able to make rules to cap new extraction shares to protect existing entitlement holders’ rights to have water delivered and to allow trade to give them more flexibility to manage their own delivery risks. This includes assessing any applications from people wanting to move extraction share between properties or water users within the lower Murray, which is possible now as long as there is no impact on existing entitlement holders’ rights.

Some small but important technical clarifications will ensure smooth operation of the water reforms. In particular the technical changes involve making sure tenants, not just landholders, can hold place-of-take approvals in line with the intent of the legislation; making sure that water shareholders and others with rights to future allocations through lease arrangements can retain their place-of-take approvals with their allocation account empty, ready for allocations; making sure someone from interstate can trade it to another person; making sure existing powers to trade all types of Victorian water allocations interstate are retained; enabling place-of-take application fees to be prescribed under regulation, consistent with how equivalent fees are currently set; enabling water market transparency related amendments to commence separately from place-of-take approval amendments; and enabling rules for place-of-take approvals to be made without a regulatory impact statement if made in accordance with the allowable exemption requirements set out in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. This will smooth things out significantly.

Another important technical change in the bill will enable market transparency related amendments to commence separately from the place-of-take approvals framework. This means that the market transparency improvements with the community, which have been thoroughly consulted on, can be introduced from 1 July 2023 and earlier than the place-of-take approvals framework. This will provide additional time for consultation with water users on the rules and regulations that give effect to the place-of-take approvals framework without unnecessarily delaying the market transparency improvements until 2024. So in effect this bill will delay the default commencement of the new framework from July 2023 to July 2024, allowing comprehensive consultation to ensure best possible outcomes.

The Andrews Labor government is committed to deep, inclusive and thorough community engagement to ensure that all views and feedback are received and considered. This bill seeks to ensure 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 the commencement of the framework. Consultation on detailed rules began through the appointment of a consultative committee in September 2022. This was to ensure quality insights came from the irrigation community and the building of trusted relationships between stakeholders, leading to greater collaboration and participation in the changes.

Wider consultation had been planned for October and December 2022, with a pause in November due to the election period. However, the floods were a major disruption and are continuing to impact communities. Even now they continue to deal with the after-effects on their land, which have resulted in a delayed and extended harvest period. Agriculture Victoria data records that as of 9 December 2022 more than 28,000 outbound telephone calls were made to farmers impacted by flooding to assess flood damage and address any animal welfare issues. The effect of these floods on farmers and communities is enormous and heartbreaking: livestock deaths, fences damaged, hay and silage destroyed, stored grain losses and pasture losses. Field crops lost were identified as 218,640 hectares, total farm affected area was 498,629 hectares and perished beehives number 1164 and now require feeding. Honey flow losses came in at 208 tonnes. It is daunting to think about the implications and the real story behind this data. So it is hardly surprising that in December 2022 and 2023 irrigators who did attend the consultation session told us that their communities lacked the bandwidth to contemplate the reforms. By extending the default commencement date of the amendment act until July 2024 more time will be taken to implement an improved framework for regulating the place-of-take water, and flood-affected users in northern Victoria will have time to consider and adjust to the new reforms. It also gives us time to address technical matters in the amendment act relating to these provisions to ensure the smooth operation of the water reforms and avoid unintended consequences, including to interstate water trade arrangements.

In conclusion, this bill represents sensible, commonsense and above all responsible reforms in a timely manner. I congratulate all of those involved in trying to participate in the consultations in the face of the floods. I thank for all their efforts the farmers and irrigators in that space and hope that once the recovery progresses enough the engagement will be able to start again effectively. This is a largely technical bill which seeks to take the time to complete important consultation for the many community members affected by the major floods in northern Victoria, and I support this bill.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:00): I am delighted to rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the work that Minister Shing has put into this bill. I would also like to acknowledge that I quite enjoyed listening to the previous contributions, both from Ms Ermacora and from Mrs Broad. Obviously it is very good to have a regional perspective when discussing these matters, so I very much appreciated their contributions.

Water is a precious resource that plays a vital role in our lives and the sustainability of our communities. It is of course essential for agriculture, it is essential for industry and it is essential for the wellbeing of us all, for humans and for the environment. As custodians of our natural resources, we are responsible for ensuring that we manage water sustainably and equitably, and that is what this bill seeks to do. The Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 does hold, you could say, a significant significance, as it seeks to address critical issues and strengthen water delivery rights. Through amendments to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021, this bill aims to clarify and enhance the framework governing water management in our state and in our region. It is a proactive step towards ensuring the efficient allocation and utilisation of our precious water resources.

In the following discussion on this bill I would like to provide firstly a comprehensive overview of the bill, including its objectives and its proposed changes, as well as the anticipated impacts of the bill. We will delve into the context surrounding the bill’s introduction and the need for its provisions, and additionally I would also like to take some time to shed light on the extensive community consultation that has taken place, which has been done to ensure that the concerns and opinions of relevant and important stakeholders have been taken into account. I would also like to explore the importance of water market transparency and how this bill will actually address that critical aspect as well. Transparency in our water markets fosters trust, accountability and above all fair resource allocation. I would like to also discuss the existing transparency measures in place as well as the rationale behind supporting or opposing certain amendments.

First off, it is also worth noting that the Andrews Labor government has already been actively supporting communities affected by the devastating floods over the past year in Victoria, especially in northern Victoria. The government has provided – as I have spoken about in a number of previous speeches in this place too, including a fabulous motion put by Ms Lovell, I believe in our last sitting week, to have a regional sitting in the next year up in northern Victoria in the flood-affected areas; it was a good opportunity to join in support of that and also to speak about the support that we have provided for our flood-affected communities – as members will know, additional financial assistance, relief centres, accommodation and of course case support to help plan a path forward for our flood-affected Victorians. This approach does stand in contrast to that of some members perhaps who have shown less concern about areas outside of some very inner local government areas. This is a government that actually looks after all Victorians, whether in the regions, in the suburbs or in the inner cities.

The extension of the default commencement date of the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 from its previous proposed implementation date of 1 July this year to 1 July next year actually aims to provide flood-affected water users, in northern Victoria in particular, with the additional time that they need to recover and to adapt to the proposed reforms. The extension recognises the challenges faced by these communities, and it demonstrates the government’s commitment to their wellbeing. It also acknowledges the complexities that arise when you implement reforms during a period of recovery, which can be particularly challenging for those who have faced immense challenges in the aftermath of those devastating floods. So it is good to see that this will allow those communities the extra time that they need.

The minor amendments proposed in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 do aim to clarify and strengthen water delivery rights, providing water users with clearer and more certain rights in order for them to extract a share of the flow in the river during rationing restrictions. These amendments may be considered small in scale, but they do play a significant role in ensuring the smooth operation of these water reforms and avoiding unintended consequences. By enhancing the functionality and the certainty of the Water Act 1989, the government will be promoting a more efficient and effective water management framework for Victoria.

Overall the Andrews Labor government’s approach to the floods and the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 combined demonstrate a commitment to supporting communities and ensuring sustainable and equitable management of water resources. By providing comprehensive support to our flood-affected communities and proposing amendments to strengthen water delivery rights the government aims to empower water users and promote responsible water management practices. These efforts will benefit not only current water users of course but also future generations by ensuring a more sustainable supply long into the future.

The aforementioned amendment act, which received assent in November 2021, aimed to amend the Water Act 1989 and introduce reforms to clarify and strengthen water delivery rights. However, specific provisions of that act have yet to come into effect, including the new place-of-take approval provisions that my colleague Ms Ermacora referred to just previously. So it is essential to understand the current status of the amendment act to contextualise the proposed amendments of the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023.

This bill seeks to extend the default commencement date of the amendment act from 1 July 2023 to 1 July 2024. As discussed, this extension is very necessary to provide our flood-affected water users in northern Victoria the time that they need to understand and adapt to these new reforms, and by granting this additional time we also acknowledge the challenge that these users face and ensure that they will have sufficient opportunity to engage with the changes meaningfully. The delay will also help manage the technological risks associated with updating the Victorian Water Register, providing a more robust framework for implementing these place-of-take approvals.

The amendment act introduced a new place-of-take approvals framework which requires updating the Victorian Water Register to support its implementation. Given the complexity of the task and the inherent technological risks, it is imperative to allow for additional time to ensure a smooth transition. Updating the Victorian Water Register’s functionality requires careful planning and testing in order for us to minimise disruptions and ensure that there is accurate recording and management of our state’s water entitlements. The extension of the commencement date provides the necessary time frame to mitigate these technological risks and facilitate the seamless implementation of these reforms.

I think it is also important to clarify that the proposed amendments in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 will not impact the cost of water. These changes primarily aim to provide clearer and more certain rights to extract water during periods of rationing restrictions. So the objective is to ensure that water users better understand their entitlements and can make informed decisions regarding their water usage. The proposed amendments do not introduce cost-related implications, which is important to note, but they do focus on strengthening our water delivery rights.

The proposed amendments contained within the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 offer significant benefits to water users by providing clearer and more certain rights to extract water during periods of rationing restrictions. This clarity will ensure that water users have a better understanding of both their rights and their obligations when this period is defined and declared. By improving the transparency and the certainty of water delivery rights we will be empowering water users to manage their water usage more effectively and more efficiently, particularly during those high-demand periods when the pressure on and the demand for water is coming from all directions. These benefits contribute to a more sustainable and equitable water management system.

The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action has undertaken comprehensive stakeholder consultation throughout the development of the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This consultation process involved engaging with a wide group of stakeholders, including the water users themselves of course, industry representatives and community groups too. Through these consultations valuable insights and feedback have been gathered and helped to really shape these proposed amendments to ensure that they align with the needs, the expectations and the demands of the various stakeholders involved.

Let us take, by way of example, the place-of-take consultative committee, comprising representatives from irrigators across Victoria’s declared systems, which has provided valuable advice on the proposed amendments and the implementation of the place-of-take approvals framework. Their input and their expertise on the subject matter have been really instrumental in refining the reforms and ensuring that they are both meaningful and effective, as well as very practical too. Additionally, the support from rural water corporations – and my colleague Ms Ermacora referred to the Southern Rural Water corporation as well as many others too – and the Victorian Farmers Federation further underscores the collaborative efforts and shared vision in improving water management practices in this state.

So based on the extensive stakeholder consultation, which was conducted, as I said, by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, there is a strong level of confidence that there will be broad support for the clarifying amendments in this bill, the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The feedback which was received by government from stakeholders during the consultation process has indicated broad general agreement with the need for these amendments in order to achieve the original intent of our government’s water reforms. This broad support reflects the inclusive and collaborative approach that we have taken in shaping these proposed amendments, which is to ensure that they are well aligned with the interests and perspectives of all water users in our state.

The Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 builds upon the existing water market transparency agreements that were passed in 2021. These arrangements resulted from the extensive public consultation conducted by the Victorian government both in 2019 and in 2020. It also reflects the community’s desire for greater transparency in water markets, so it also aims to ensure and to enhance the accountability and the fairness of our water management practices. During this consultation process it did become evident that the community overwhelmingly supported greater transparency in our water markets, including by publishing information about significant water owners. This reflects the community’s rightful expectation of increased accountability and access to important information about the largest holders of water shares in each of our state’s declared systems. The proposed amendments in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 do align with these desires and aim to address the community’s call, which we as part of this government have listened to, for improved transparency.

I do note that whilst the proposed amendments in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 aim to enhance that water market transparency, some concerns have been raised regarding specific details and implementation of these amendments. I know that Minister Shing is highly engaged with this matter, as is the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, and they will be continuing to work through these concerns with stakeholders as part of the implementation process of this legislation. That work, I understand, is already well underway.

The Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is significant in our ongoing efforts to improve our water management practices in the state of Victoria. It addresses crucial aspects, such as clarifying and strengthening water delivery rights and providing more certainty during rationing restrictions – as we all know, whilst we have had quite substantial rainfall in the past few years, it is not going to last forever, especially with weather systems changing all the time, and it will not be long before we are faced with some very tough challenges again in many, many parts of our state. It also updates the regulatory frameworks to align with the evolving needs of our water users.

By enacting this bill we can better manage water resources, support our flood-affected communities and ensure the sustainable use of water for all stakeholders involved. The proposed amendments in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 have been carefully developed based on extensive stakeholder consultation and support from key industry representatives. I am confident that these changes will positively impact water management and delivery rights in our state. By allowing more time for flood-affected users to adapt to the reforms, addressing technical matters and enhancing transparency, we can strengthen the overall framework for water management in Victoria. For these reasons, I do commend this bill to the house.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:15): I am very excited today to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. There is a number of reasons for this, which I am going to talk you through. I know some people think this is a technical bill, but I want to tell you: I have been thinking about this, and there is nothing dry about water.

Members interjecting.

Tom McINTOSH: God, that was a good one, wasn’t it? To go into further detail as to why I have a deep appreciation for water, having grown up on a farm we were dependent on tank and bore water. We had no connection to a town supply, so I deeply appreciate how important water is. I am going to speak to this later.

There are many things I want to highlight in my contribution to this bill today, but I will start by acknowledging my colleague in our region of Eastern Victoria, Minister Shing. Minister Shing is the water minister.

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: I will acknowledge Mr Bourman is also here. Thank you, Mr Bourman. I wanted to acknowledge Minister Shing – I have only been in this place for maybe seven or eight months, but shortly after I came in, the floods occurred – because, as Minister for Water, Minister Shing spent a lot of time doing a lot of hard work on the ground with communities. I just want to put on the record that it is acknowledged, and I am sure the communities across particularly northern Victoria who were so heavily impacted appreciated that and acknowledge that as well.

In Eastern Victoria I have had the pleasure and I have had the opportunity to visit and spend some time with Gippsland Water. Gippsland Water are doing some really impressive, ingenious things with their wastewater to make sure we are getting the most out of all the water. I have already said water is incredibly important to us. I am excited about it because it is probably our most precious resource. Without water we are in a lot of trouble, and on a dry continent like Australia that is very evident – unfortunately – very frequently to all of us.

I visited Dutson Downs, which is a property many of you may not have heard of. It is 8000 hectares probably 25 to 30 minutes south of Sale. They are doing incredible things there. Mr Galea, I will actually mention you in this because many of your constituents are great contributors to some of the work being done on the farm. They take 180,000 tonnes of green waste every year, and with that and the wastewater from both residential and industrial water flows – treated water coming from Morwell and the like – they are able to create 60,000 tonnes of organic compost every year. This is just the start. This is a brilliant example of the circular economy, where we are not wasting the organic compost and we are not wasting water just letting it run down. Back in the day it used to run down an open sewer straight into the beach basically. There were some treatment ponds along the way. There was a name ‍– I forget it now – for that canal, but people were advised not to swim in it.

On this massive 8000 hectares, the compost creation is basically a small component of it. They are capturing that water, using the compost. This compost is sold at profit by Gippsland Water to our agricultural businesses, who love it as a product. We actually spent quite a bit of time driving around because it is such a big property, and it borders onto the dunes of Ninety Mile Beach, so we are talking about marginal land. I have got a photo where my hands are in amongst – you typically see soil on a farm – sand. But they are growing incredible crops, like canola. The locals call them emus, running about getting in amongst it all, but they have thriving crops of canola. They have various crops. They have got cattle there, they have got sheep there, and it is all happening because of their approach to the way that they manage this marginal land. The organic matter they are making there and their recycled water use are great examples of what we as a society can all strive towards in that circular economy.

The other thing they are doing there, I should note, is that they have been able to maintain over many years hundreds of acres of remnant bush, and they are growing more remnant bush in strategic areas to benefit not only the farm but two endangered species. They have partnered with Zoos Victoria – there is the golden bell frog and the Pookila mouse – to work with Melbourne zoos on breeding them and working with those remnant areas of habitat to ensure that those species not only come off the endangered list but begin to thrive in that area.

There is another thing I have been able to do with Gippsland Water, and the reason I want to keep raising Gippsland Water and indeed, as Mr Galea said before, so many of our water boards is the work they are doing on the ground and doing in local communities is breathtaking. When you think about those opposite, who perhaps have their focus on privatisation and where they want to go with things, it is great to see the work that is being done when the community and all of our best interests are put at the forefront. I will acknowledge a member for Northern Victoria is here. Thank you for being here. It is a pity a few more of your colleagues are not here, but it is good that you are here.

I was fortunate enough to visit the Drouin wastewater facility. I must say Mum was pretty impressed. I got my first plaque there. Minister Shing was busy with other duties, as I alluded to earlier, but I got to open the $50 million upgrade to the Drouin wastewater treatment facility. It was incredible walking around and seeing all this water. I go back again to the holistic view that Gippsland Water have. On their treatment ponds they have got floating solar panels to help with the energy generation for the treatment process – that is just the first point. Anyone who is about to have lunch might want to tune out, but we were walking over these incredible treatment plants, which look somewhere between a Milo and something a bit lighter in colour – maybe a caramel Milo; do they make those? But there was no smell. Due to the microorganisms living within the water and treating that water there was no smell at that time, which was quite incredible as I was walking across it, looking down and thinking it would be a very different situation. So again the work that is going into the capture and the treatment of that water is ensuring it is going back in, being used in a manner that would not be possible otherwise.

We need water for our homes, we need it to grow our food, we need it for industry and we need it for the products we use every day, and of course the environment also needs the water. In essence it sustains the planet we live on. Water is incredibly powerful. We watch the water in the landscape rejuvenate the bush. I mentioned before I grew up on a farm. I am glad Dr Bach is here. I am sure when I was on the farm and we had droughts and the dams were disappearing he was probably in a university club, I do not know, talking about privatisation or something along those lines. But I must say the time spent in those university clubs means he is very eloquent in his speaking – something I could never emulate, but I will try. I am learning bigger and bigger words every day just by listening to him. We were living on tank water or bore water and literally the dams and the lakes disappeared, so for recreational purposes, for agricultural purposes, for simple drinking water, it just was not there. That is forever burnt in my mind.

Not to talk too much about the opposition, but something they are not keen on is insurance policies. They would rather leave it all to the market and just hope that everything works out all right. But Labor governments have made investments in the past to make sure we have water for today and for the future, because although we have been through a wet cycle, that is not always going to be the case, and even when we are in wet cycles or particularly when we are in dry cycles –

Matthew Bach interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: You were not in uni for that one. I am sorry, Dr Bach. I have obviously thrown you, because that is the worst jibe I have heard from your side. Most of them are very good. That was one of your worst. I have lost my place. I do not have notes. I am not speaking from notes, Dr Bach, so I will have to recall where I was.

With the cycles that we have lived through and that we are living through, we know water is going to become, particularly in certain periods, more and more scarce, so we need to collectively work to ensure that our use of our water is better and better. I really hope that in this place and in parliaments around Australia the collective understanding and acknowledgement of that is deeply understood.

I think if we look at Australia over a very long period of time, tens of thousands of years, like our Indigenous people have, with that deep respect for the land and that deep respect for bush management, for water management – it is a conversation that I have had with Indigenous peoples across eastern Victoria and conversations I have had with Gunnai/Kurnai land management – it is about looking at that sustainability. I am a big believer in sustainability. I do not think it matters whether you are talking about economics or whether you are talking about the environment. It all comes together. It is all part of the bigger process that we need to support us. So that is always why am so proud to stand up here and talk about everything that the government is doing with regard to climate change, everything the Minister for Environment is doing, everything the Minister for Energy and Resources is doing and why we have been at the front of the pack for years and years – probably two decades now – while those opposite, whether it be here or in Canberra, have just refused to acknowledge it, refused to talk about it. You know the energy minister is leading something that I am incredibly proud of, the offshore wind industry, which Labor governments have put time and effort and energy into, that is going to provide the energy we need for this state, for this nation, and be a powerhouse for the rest of the century. The whole world is moving this way, and it is just such a shame that we have for so many years not been on the front foot with all this.

As I said, things are changing at a rapid rate due to climate change. I was just reading this morning the report from the World Meteorological Organization, which tells us what we already know – that we need to rapidly decarbonise our economy to limit temperature rise. That report predicts record temperatures in the next five years. Reports they had previously made contain predictions that had been made about temperature rises that are being exceeded. So in this conversation about water management, water use, a holistic view of water and everything it provides to our agriculture, to our industries, to our residents, to our environment, to species survival and to our species’ survival, it is important that these two conversations are absolutely linked.

To the bill itself: we heard from water users during extensive consultations that they needed more time to understand the place-of-take framework changes, so we have extended the start date. This will ensure that in particular those in flood-affected communities are given the time to understand the changes to the place-of-take framework as well as allow time for additional consultation.

The new framework will replace current complex provisions and make it clearer for existing water entitlement holders when they can use water during a shortfall, such as high water demand periods. It will not affect anyone’s water shares. It simply gives water users more certainty about their water entitlement when demand exceeds the amount of water flowing down the river. Existing entitlement holders can be assured that current arrangements will remain in place in case of any shortfall over the summer 2023–24 peak demand period. With climate change expected to increase the frequency of hot days and the length of warm spells, peaks in daily demand are likely to continue to increase. The legislative reform is part of a broader program of work with Victoria working alongside the Murray–Darling Basin Authority and other southern basin states to improve management of Murray delivery risks and support water users to manage delivery risks.

I think this bill and everything in it and everything I have talked about are important, because I and those on this side think about future generations. It is great to see kids in here today, and this will help ensure a great future for our young.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:30): I am very pleased to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which will amend the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021, which upon commencement will itself amend the Water Act 1989 in order to clarify and strengthen water delivery rights. The bill will also make minor amendments to the Water Act 1989. Principally the bill’s purpose is to extend the default commencement date of the amendment act from 1 July 2023 to 1 July 2024 to allow more time to implement an improved framework for regulating the place of taking water – the place-of-take approvals framework, as many in the trade know it – so that the flood-affected water users in northern Victoria have time to consider and adjust to the new reforms. As a member of the Council’s environment committee that is examining and inquiring into those flooding events from last year, I am sure the amendments contained in this legislation will be appreciated by those communities. That committee is undertaking a lot of detailed work in relation to the impacts of those flooding events from last year. The bill will also address technical matters in the amendment act relating to these provisions before the amendment act commences operation to ensure the smooth operation of the water reforms and avoid unintended consequences of the reforms, including to interstate water trade arrangements. I suppose it is important today in the context of this debate that we are not relitigating or going over old debates that have passed us by about the introduction of these frameworks and other measures from the 2021 bill.

It is obviously an important topic, the issue of water rights and the issue of management of our incredibly important water resources, particularly in a country like Australia that is known for its unpredictable climate. We heard Mr McIntosh talk about the impacts that climate change are having on our climate. We know that the forecast from the Bureau of Meteorology is that we have got some very hot years ahead. So the management of our rivers and our water resources is paramount for our survival, for our prosperity and for overall environmental sustainability.

It is important in debates such as this to acknowledge the important role of riparian rights in the context of water management frameworks. Riparian rights refer to the legal rights and responsibilities of individuals or communities who own land adjacent to a river or water source, and these rights have been established to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of water resources and to protect the health and vitality of our ecosystem. Riparian rights acknowledge that rivers are not isolated entities but are interconnected systems that support a diversity of flora and fauna. The health of these ecosystems is intricately linked to the availability and quality of water, and by granting riparian rights we recognise the responsibility to maintain and sustain the delicate balance of these ecosystems and ensure that water is used judiciously without causing irreparable harm.

It is also of paramount importance to safeguard the natural fecundity of our rivers. Fecundity refers to the fertility and ability of an ecosystem to support its life and sustain its productivity. Our rivers with their water supply have nurtured an array of plant and animal species for millennia. They have sustained human settlements for tens of thousands of years, provided food and water for modern agricultural practices and served as lifelines for countless communities. But of course population growth and the increasing demands of industry and agriculture do place a strain on our water resources. Unchecked extraction, pollution and the alteration of river flows threaten the fecundity of our rivers, endangering their delicate ecosystems and the services they provide. But through proper management such as would be facilitated by this bill and the amendments that it seeks to make to our water framework, we can work to prevent irreversible damage to our natural environment and the disastrous consequences that would have for the wellbeing of current and future generations.

Effective river and water management strategies are vital to address these challenges. We have got to prioritise sustainable use of our water resources with a clear focus on their conservation, on their efficiency and on innovation. Embracing technologies to promote water-saving practices in agriculture, implementing efficient irrigation systems and encouraging responsible domestic water consumption are just some of the measures that we can adopt to ensure a balanced and equitable distribution of water across our community. Of course we must do more to invest in the protection and restoration of riparian habitats. Our riparian zones play a crucial role in filtering pollutants, reducing erosion and providing habitat for a diverse range of species. By preserving and rehabilitating these areas we can safeguard the fecundity of our rivers, promoting healthy ecosystems and enhancing the resilience of our landscapes. To do so, as with many things that we must embark upon, collaboration between various stakeholder groups is essential in achieving sustainable river and water management. Governments at all levels, communities of all types – industry, agriculture, environmental organisations – must all work together to develop comprehensive and inclusive policies that prioritise long-term sustainability of these precious resources. By engaging in this type of approach, working collectively we can leverage the wisdom from all parties to tackle the complex challenges we all face.

One of the more important key technical changes that this bill makes will enable market transparency related amendments to commence separately from the place-of-take approvals framework, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks. The importance of separating these changes means that the market transparency improvements, which the community have been thoroughly consulted on, can be introduced from 1 July 2023, earlier than the place-of-take approvals framework. It enables some parts of the measures that were previously endorsed under the prior amending act to be enacted earlier than other parts. The revised time frames for the place-of-take approvals framework will provide additional time for consultation with water users on the rules and regulations to give effect to the place-of-take approvals framework without unnecessarily delaying those important 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 bill also does some important work in fixing some issues which have emerged in the management framework. I particularly want to draw on some work the bill does in substituting notes at important sections. Clause 14 amends section 36 of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act to substitute the note at the foot of proposed section 33T(4) of the Water Act to explain that approvals under part 4AA of the Water Act are also required before water can be taken under a limited term transfer. Clause 15 amends section 37 of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 to substitute the note at the foot of proposed section 33TA(3) of the Water Act 1989 to explain that approvals under part 4AA of the Water Act are also required before water can be taken under an assigned water allocation. Clause 16 amends section 38(2) of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act to substitute the note at the foot of proposed section 33U(4) of the Water Act 1989 to explain that approvals under part 4AA of the Water Act 1989 are also required before water can be taken under an assigned water allocation. Clause 17 amends section 39 of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act to substitute the note at the foot of proposed section 33V(2) of the Water Act 1989 to explain that approvals under part 4AA of the Water Act 1989 are also required before water can be taken under a further assigned water allocation. Clause 18 inserts after section 39 of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 a new section 39A of the act, which will insert a note at the foot of section 33AG(1) of the Water Act to explain that approvals under part 4AA of the Water Act 1989 are also required before water can be taken under an approval granted under section 33AG(1).

Whilst it may be a bit of laborious detail, it is important to demonstrate that the frameworks that exist under water management in Victoria and certainly as part of the national frameworks which have been negotiated over many years in relation to the Murray–Darling Basin and its associated plan do contain an important amount of technical detail – detail which it is important to get right. So what this bill is seeking to do by amending these various sections is ensure that what can be a very technical area of regulation – and I use that word affectionately and deliberately as regulation obviously has various meanings in a water context – can be executed efficiently and effectively. And I know that Minister Shing has a personal commitment to such matters, and it shows from her dedication to these tasks.

So I think what we have been able to demonstrate here in the Parliament through the consideration of this bill, and as I have previously outlined over the course of this speech, is that the government take seriously the management of Victoria’s water framework, that we understand the importance of riparian rights to the effective management of all parts of our river system to sustain the necessary fecundity so that these rivers can sustain us and that the approach the government have been taking has been one of detailed and extensive consultation with water users over the course of this project – getting into the detail, into the weeds perhaps, it may be appropriate to say.

Members interjecting.

Ryan BATCHELOR: It is an undulating debate – it is, absolutely – and it is a debate that stands the test of time. What this bill does recognise is that there are communities in Victoria who have recently been flood affected, and the bill, by breaking the nexus between the introduction of the market transparency features and the place-of-take approvals framework, allows part of these measures to be implemented sooner and part of these measures to be implemented later so that these flood-affected communities do have more time to understand how the place-of-take framework will occur and to allow time for additional consultation. And importantly, this new framework will replace current provisions which are very complex.

Matthew Bach: On a point of order, President, regarding tedious repetition, you would be aware no doubt that on 21 November 1979 President Grimwade ruled that a speaker was engaging in tedious repetition. I have now heard about these particular frameworks on, I think, five or six occasions. I am not particularly good at doing the numbers, but my understanding is that almost every member opposite is intending to speak on this bill. If this ruling from the Chair perhaps could be expanded again on the basis that every single member of the government is intending to engage in tedious repetition, could we, largely in the interests of my mental health and wellbeing, cease this debate and move on?

Lee Tarlamis: On the point of order, President, Dr Bach made a reference that all members on this side will be speaking on this debate. I do not intend to speak on this debate, so that is incorrect.

The PRESIDENT: That is up there with the Bev McArthur point of order. Thank you, Mr Tarlamis.

Harriet Shing: Further to Dr Bach’s point of order, President, he would also note that there have been numerous rulings from the Chair, including from President Smith and President Atkinson, which have gone to the fact that tedious repetition is not made out where indeed there has been new material or related material introduced to support the claims that are being asserted in the context of parliamentary debate. So Dr Bach may be well advised to look at those particular rulings in the context of the intricate subject matter of this bill, which are germane and relevant to the subject at hand.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, President, if we are talking about tedious repetition, perhaps I would draw Dr Bach’s attention to the King’s coronation speeches that were made by those opposite. I think every member on the opposition benches mentioned Timbertop.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think that is a point of order either.

Matthew Bach: In the interests of good-natured debate I would be happy to accept Ms Terpstra’s point of order and have those references struck out. But nonetheless, further to the point of order, President, Ms Shing and those opposite would also be aware that in 1991 President Hunt ruled that content from one member’s speech can be ruled to be tedious and repetitious, even if it was the first time that that member had spoken about it, if indeed that exact content had been referenced by other people. Given that all those opposite are referring to notes that appear very common, I would urge that the point of order should be upheld.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, President, as Dr Bach would also be aware, former President Atkinson has ruled in relation to the subject matter of a bill that it is neither tedious nor repetitious where the materials being discussed at hand are germane to the debate as part of the second reading.

The PRESIDENT: Dr Bach, I am not going to uphold that point of order, but I appreciate you looking at previous rulings, because it is actually quite helpful. I would have said that Grimwade in 1979 was not actually referring collectively to all individual speakers repeating similar stuff. I think Grimwade might have been referring to one particular speaker maybe repeating themselves, but I do appreciate that in 1991 Hunt said a different thing, and I am happy to look at that. I understand that, but at this point I will not uphold the point of order. There have been a lot of conversations recently about practices in the chamber – practices around reading speeches and a number of other things – and me being an old man, having been here a long time, I have asked the clerks to look at all these practices because I think some of these practices that you can refer to back to the 1970s actually have not been adhered to for decades. So when does a practice stop being a practice? But I appreciate your point of order, and I will look at that ruling from President Hunt. I did not know it existed, so I will look at it. Thank you for that.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am not sure that anyone else in this debate has spoken about the importance of the need to safeguard the natural fecundity of our rivers. I think that is entirely un-repetitious because we know that fecundity refers to the ability of an ecosystem to support life and sustain its productivity, which is probably a concept that we need to reflect on here with those types of interjections from Dr Bach and the opposition in general, reflecting on what is required on their part to sustain their own life and to sustain the productivity of their engagement in the debates in this chamber.

This is an important bill. It does important things. It is rather technical in places, but I think we should embrace the technicality and we should embrace the detail, because it is serving an important purpose to safeguard the water of Victoria.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): I rise also to make a contribution to this debate in regard to the Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I hope it is going to be a unique contribution, because I must say I have been in the chair and in the chamber most of the morning and have had the opportunity to listen to many of the contributions here today, and I think, just following on from what Dr Bach said earlier, every member in this chamber would be very hard pressed to contribute to anything in any way, because when you are talking about a bill the nature of it is that it contains certain points that each member addresses when they make their contribution. So it is kind of a really interesting stretch that Dr Bach has made on repetition, because I do not think that is the case.

But nevertheless this is an important bill. It is about ensuring an appropriate framework. I might just say – I am going to talk about the bill – that the flood event that happened last year, in 2022, was a very exceptional event in terms of the scale and size of the flood event itself. I think the weather pattern that preceded the floods has happened only four times in history since records began. So I think it is only appropriate that the government look at ways and measures in regard to not only water but how we might help flood-affected communities. We know this only too well on the government benches. I think what I am sensing – and I have certainly been looking at lots of media around responses to communities – is that most communities appreciate that they were well supported by volunteer organisations like the SES and others, who provided critically important help and assistance to flood-affected people.

I have heard people talk about the timeliness of warnings and how they appreciated some of the warnings that came through but also how they were not quite sure how to act in regard to some of those warnings. I can say, as someone who has experienced a natural disaster myself – I was living in Canberra in 2003 when the bushfires came through there – that no-one came to get us out. We were having to rely on radio warnings and the like that were quite outdated. So it is good to see that while it is sad that we have all these natural disasters happening, with each one we learn something from them and we fine-tune and improve our responses to them. People have different responses to these sorts of events as well. Some people choose to stay; some people choose to go. I know when I was in Canberra, we got out. We were not going to hang around. I think I had a six-month-old baby on my hip and no shoes on my feet when I ran out the door and tried to get in our car and then got caught up in traffic.

These things happen, but we learn from them as we go, and that is really important. Particularly with flooding events what we have seen is that, for example, the government made available to flood-affected residents the short-term housing at Mickleham in our COVID facility. So that facility has come in very handy, and it meant people had some certainty. I remember when I was in Canberra, we had just moved there. We had been there for six weeks, so we knew no-one. We had nowhere to go, and we ended up that night staying in someone’s house whom we did not actually know. They were a security guard whose parents were refugees; they had fled their country. We met them and they said, ‘Please come to our house and stay the night.’ I remember my son was covered in ash and soot, but I appreciated having for that night a roof over my head and somewhere safe to go to clean up and all the rest of it. So likewise with flood-affected communities, people who were able to go to Mickleham when their houses were impacted by floodwaters were able to have some rest and respite and some certainty about their accommodation needs, for the short term of course. In the aftermath of the floods what we know is that people then have to deal with insurance, rebuilding and all those sorts of things, and it is very challenging.

I think what also happens when we think about floods and floodwater is that often people underestimate what flooding means. They think they will just get some floodwater rising, but when floodwaters actually rise a metre or 2 metres and homes are completely inundated, it is what is in those floodwaters that is particularly nasty. There is sewage; there is debris. There is all manner of nasties in there. So I think assisting people to understand that floodwater is not just like water rising out of a creek – that there is all manner of really horrible stuff in there, and getting out is probably the best thing you can do for yourself and your health.

The reason why I talk about these sorts of things is because of the impacts of climate change, and this is one of the things that this bill actually goes to addressing. We know climate change is expected to increase the frequency of hot days and the length of warm spells, and peaks in daily demand for water are therefore likely to continue to increase. The legislative reforms form part of a broader program of work for Victoria alongside the Murray–Darling Basin Authority and other southern basin states to improve management of Murray delivery risks and support water users to manage their own delivery risks. It is a challenge, because people think catchment management authorities just have responsibility for providing drinking water, but actually they do not. They provide water to irrigators. That is what they do. People buy water rights. I know Mr McIntosh’s contribution talked about this earlier, and others have talked about water rights and purchasing of water and what that means for people and communities as well.

To go back to the impact of the floods in relation to this bill, what we know is that the bill was not considered before the October 2022 flood event. We know the devastation that the flood events caused across Victoria, particularly for regional Victorians; we know that that has been devastating. Thousands of Victorians are dealing with the flood recovery today, and we know this is a long and difficult and at times distressing process. I want to acknowledge all of those regional Victorians who are flood affected and pass on my heartfelt sympathies and really deepest condolences to those families. Loss of life in some of these events is never a good outcome. But certainly I want to pass on that we understand and sympathise with the difficult times that many Victorians are still going through and the major clean-up efforts and all that stuff that they have got to go through now. It is very draining; it is distressing. But nevertheless it is something that I think people do not necessarily think about – the long tail, if you like, of a climatic event like this. This is why we need to have fit-for-purpose legislation around water that addresses the challenges that we find ourselves facing.

For the many Victorians who were impacted by the floods and for the farmers and water users in our declared systems, the place-of-take approvals framework will be implemented. This is going to clarify the place of take, if you like. This is a term that I have just learned about in preparing for this debate today.

A member: Good term, isn’t it.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It is a very interesting term – not as interesting as the word ‘fecundity’ perhaps ‍– around management of our water. Nevertheless ‘place of take’ is kind of up there, right? So there you go. You would think in debating such a technical bill that you would not have the opportunity for such lyrical prose, but here we are. It is relevant, it is necessary and it is not repetitive either; it is interesting nevertheless.

We know that farmers have had enough on their minds with flood recovery and simply in many cases have not had the bandwidth to engage with consultations on the implementation or adapt to the new framework in these last two months. They have had many other things on their minds, as they should have, just trying to get their businesses, their lives, their livelihoods and their homes back in order. We know that is a very challenging thing, and as I just remarked upon earlier, although that flood event impacted communities, the long tail of those floods is the recovery process. It is ongoing; it is ever changing as people step their way through that long tail. So again, our thoughts are with those farmers and those communities who are still in the recovery and rebuilding process.

In January this year, when we restarted consultation – it had been paused because of the floods – the turnout to the consultation sessions was low. Those that did attend told us they had little bandwidth to prepare for the changes as obviously, as I just remarked upon, they were dealing with other things. So really this was not a top or high priority for them, and that is completely understandable. As I said, imagine if you were a farmer living along the Goulburn near Shepparton and your farm was flooded. You would have spent the past six months dealing with insurers, applying for government grant relief, working with community, assessing damage, putting in 16-plus-hour days to repair your farm, your pumps, your fences, your paddocks – the list goes on and on and on. As I said, our sympathies and thoughts are with those farmers who are still battling and going through that. But that is why we are delaying the commencement of the place-of-take approvals – for these reasons. We recognise that there needs to be a little bit more time to allow these things to be bedded down and allow people to have appropriate time to think about these things. This will give regional Victorians the time they need to be ready and informed. It is appropriate; it is an appropriate measure to take just to pause these things, but certainly things will get back on track soon.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.