Thursday, 18 May 2023
Bills
Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023
Bills
Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2023
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:03): Just before, the bells got me for question time and then we broke for lunch. I will continue my contribution, and I do not have very long on the clock, which is okay. But I was talking about floods and flood-affected communities just prior to the break, and what I was commenting on at the time was the fact that there was a need to pause the consultation for this bill because of the floods and the impact that they had. People in flood-affected communities were needing to attend to other, more important things, like trying to get their housing in order – people who might have lost homes or had damaged houses, and also farmers who were attending to their damaged farms. Of course that takes priority, and people would not have had the bandwidth to deal with this. In terms of what is happening now, as I said, what was the community consultation like up until the floods? What I think has been claimed by those opposite is that the consultation on the changes did not begin until late 2022, and that is not the case. Consultation on these changes had been a long ongoing process over several years in various stages, and that is why I was commenting before that when the floods hit it interrupted that whole process. Obviously we were keen to get the consultation back on track for that, but nevertheless the floods impacted that.
The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action has been consulting with affected water users since the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 passed, and initially consultation in fact began even before that bill passed in 2021 as part of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021’s development. Throughout 2022 DEECA was working closely with our declared system rural water corporations – Goulburn–Murray Water, Lower Murray Water and Southern Rural Water – and their customer committees to make sure systems and processes are updated for them and to manage their customers’ place-of-take approvals when the new framework comes into effect. They have worked with various water industry stakeholders as well. Also the place-of-take consultative committee, a very important consultative committee, had been established. It comprised eight irrigators from across Victoria’s declared systems to provide advice to DEECA on the proposed new arrangements. This committee has provided advice on proposed conversion rules, rationing areas and extraction shares. It has also provided advice around how to communicate these changes effectively with stakeholders. Information about the new framework has been published on the Victorian Water Register website to help water users understand and prepare for the changes. Additionally, several webinars and face-to-face presentations have been provided to stakeholders and agencies about the changes and the proposed rules as well.
That is just a smattering of or a window into the consultation that happened. I know Minister Shing will be summing up very shortly. I only have a few seconds on the clock, so I might leave my contribution there. As I said, other contributors today have very ably covered the very technical aspects of this bill in great detail, and I look forward to Minister Shing’s summing up on this bill. I commend this bill to the house.
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Equality) (14:07): We have heard a significant number of contributions about this bill in the course of the second-reading debate and indeed in the other place. At first blush this looks like a small bill that in fact has only a minimal impact, but when we reach into the rationale for bringing this bill forward as a standalone, the issue of timing becomes very clear as something to manage. It becomes an important priority because of the floods which occurred last October which had and continue to have a profound impact on communities not just, as some might have it, in the areas in metropolitan Melbourne but indeed around the state. Having spent considerable time in flood-affected communities, we know full well the impact that this has had and the bandwidth that this has taken for irrigators, for communities and for stakeholders, all the way up into the border and the surrounding communities, who need the opportunity to be able to contribute to meaningful consultation and to understand the changes to a framework which are based in increased transparency and which will deliver a better measure of rigour to the way in which place-of-take approvals and transparency measures on the register are delivered.
It is important also to note the contributions around this chamber and in the Assembly that have gone in significant detail to the preparedness of the Parliament to improve the systems as they were contemplated when the bill was first introduced, and my predecessor Minister Lisa Neville fought to have an increased level of rigour and to provide certainty and accountability in the way in which the water register operates and the way in which Victoria sets a cracking pace for the national framework of regulation and oversight to operate. This is something which industry, communities and stakeholders have been looking for for a really long time. It is about making sure that we have the social licence, the community understanding and the commitment to long-term delivery of certainty in all parts of the system that will be affected by these changes. It is also about building on the work to refine an understanding of a system around general and specific place-of-take approvals – the way in which shortfalls and rationing may, and indeed probably will at some point in the not-too-distant future given the challenges of climate change, have an impact on the way in which water delivery, shares and other components of extractive and related systems operate. There is a very intricate and interlinked system of water management across this part of the southern basin, and we have worked really hard as a state alongside other jurisdictions in the matter of accountability and transparency. We are also continuing to drive that work here in Victoria, including through the mechanisms in this bill.
So separating the commencement of the place-of-take approvals from the commencement of the water transparency measure reforms will enable us to develop and educate and implement changes after relevant consultation has taken place, but it will also mean that we can have that greater level of transparency brought to bear sooner than may otherwise have occurred in conjunction with the refined amendments to the system following consultation.
As I said earlier and as a number of speakers have alluded to, we also need to manage the scarcity of the resource in a way which balances the interests and the rights of various licence-holders and shareholders. When I think about the way in which water is traded between irrigators and across the system in tagged and untagged systems and when we look at the Barmah Choke and the way in which that really constrained section of the river has a whole range of challenges for policy and regulation, it is evident that we need a system that leans into the practical realities of water management and natural resource management around the Barmah–Millewa area but also down to Cobden and up to Echuca and further beyond.
It has been good to hear from Mr Davis that the opposition supports this bill and the objectives of it. It has also been important to note Ms Broad’s contribution on support of the bill and the place-of-take approvals framework. I note Ms Broad’s interest in the horticulture industry and the importance of water. And this is also a relevant point to make around the industry and primary producers, food producers, and the work that they have done and continue to do to make a better and more efficient use of water: we have seen an increased volume of growers within the industry, but thanks to changes in seasonal cropping, for example, we have seen relatively stable levels of usage over the last sort of 20 or 25 years. Ms Broad touched on the Barmah Choke, which I referred to earlier, and the way in which that has an impact on deliverability of the resource, and the creep from the federal government and the national framework around buybacks and the impact that this would have on rural and regional communities up towards the border and in the southern basin.
Again, to restate Victoria’s position: we are opposed to buybacks. They do not provide a measure of certainty that some might wish that they would. They increase the cost of water. They reduce the volume of water in the consumptive pool. And in fact they have long-term and very negative consequences for the way in which primary producers, food producers and rural and regional communities can plan for their futures. To that end, I also want to place on the record my thanks to and gratitude for the communities who are working so hard across the Victorian side of the southern basin to deliver on a range of projects, including the Victorian flood plain management projects and the rehabilitation works that are occurring there. We have seen more than 600,000 hours put into returning water and planning to return water to our flood plains. We have also seen the use of proven technology and plant and equipment, such as pumps and regulators, being able to provide water to areas of our flood plains where overspill from banks simply will not deliver it in any consistent way, including where buybacks send vast volumes of water down the river.
This bill is an opportunity also to talk about the way in which better transparency will deliver a greater sense of confidence across our communities and across our stakeholders. This is about making sure that when we have reporting obligations being met for the water register the 2 per cent and the publication of information extend beyond corporations to individuals and that we also have those ongoing opportunities for people to seek information in accordance with the rationale and the basis for the register and the refinements set up as they have been.
I want to touch on Dr Mansfield’s amendments and the way in which they will have an impact on the bill and the way in which the objectives of this bill might be able to be met through the committee stage and a discussion on what is being delivered through water transparency and the water register and the rigour that it provides. But in the first instance I note the Greens support for this bill and the objectives of it, including the practical reality of communities having more time to be part of consultations and discussions, and the consultative committee’s work has been really important. Having opportunities for people to participate in virtual and face-to-face meetings to read materials and to understand the impact of the change of this framework is important, so to that end we are grateful to the opposition, to the Greens and indeed everybody across the Parliament in both chambers who has indicated that this bill is fundamentally important, appropriate, measured and needed.
I look forward to in committee perhaps talking a little more about the way in which balance of interests is occurring and will continue to occur and about the way in which we are continuing to lead Australia in water market reform and the work that is happening from Victoria to push other jurisdictions to improve compliance and transparency, and we know that increased compliance and transparency has a couple of really significant advantages for food producers and primary users as well as for communities. We saw this in the Pearson review in 2018. We have also seen that where we have a greater level of compliance, through metering for example, not only do we reduce water theft and not only do we have in Victoria therefore a really high level of compliance, but we are also enabling irrigators to be more efficient in the way in which they are using water. This then means a more efficient use of a finite resource, which is on balance an effective and important component of meeting future challenges, particularly as they arise in the context of climate change and volatility. We also need to acknowledge the work that continues to be done as flood recovery efforts and rebuilding efforts continue in the state and, as I said, up north.
It is a good thing indeed that Dr Mansfield in her contribution has referred in really positive terms to the Water Is Life: Traditional Owner Access to Water Roadmap. This is a piece of policy work that has been the result of very careful, respectful, enduring and thorough discussions with traditional owners. This is nation-leading work. It is work which other jurisdictions have expressed an enormous amount of interest in, and as we have a more evolved sense of what traditional owner access to water looks like, the notion of self-determination and the way in which allocations and use are refined through conversation and through iterative discussion and participation with owner groups is a key part of making sure that what we are planning for now collectively is done and underpinned with respect, with rigour and with self-determination.
I want to be clear: the government does not support the Greens amendment being proposed by Dr Mansfield today. We do not oppose the amendment because we are opposed to greater water market transparency. That is one really important point that I do want to put on the record. We are very invested in transparency, as evidenced by the work that we have done in previous development of the water register – the details that that register already provides and will continue to provide. The compliance measures in our system are very, very well established. Indeed this is nation-leading work as well. We are leading the country in water market transparency, and to that end the reforms that we see in the act already enable the Minister for Water to be able to make further information publicly available through the water register if the community calls for it and if it is publicly consulted.
There are a range of measures that exist within the system already, whether they relate to restrictions or prohibitions in the event of shortfall and shortfall delivery issues, whether these matters relate to setting of fees, whether they relate to additional information being provided on the register or indeed whether they are needed because of the dynamic nature of the water system overall. It is therefore appropriate and responsible to have these mechanisms contained in regulation rather than in legislation. That enables us to have the flexibility that the community will need as the environment and market demand and upward and downward pressures continue to evolve. I will leave my remarks there, but I do look forward to this matter being considered in committee favourably and then to seeing with the will of this house the bill passed in short order.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (14:23)
Sarah MANSFIELD: Can the minister please share the dates that community consultation meetings took place regarding place-of-take approvals up to 14 October 2022?
Harriet SHING: The community consultation was something which was undertaken for a number of years prior to the development of this bill. The bill itself was not in fact considered before the October 2022 flood events, and that is why we have got the extended period for engagement there. But what we have got is information that I can provide to you around the consultation, which has been a very long and very detailed process of conversation with communities. There have been a range of discussions between the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change – DEECA, which I will refer to it as from now on – with affected water users since the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 passed, and initially consultation in fact began before that bill even passed in 2021 as part of that Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021’s development. Throughout 2022 DEECA has been working closely with our declared system rural water corporations – Goulburn–Murray Water, Lower Murray Water and Southern Rural Water – and customer committees to make sure that systems and processes are updated for them to manage customers’ place-of-take approvals when the new framework comes into effect. They have also worked with various water industry stakeholders.
As a number of speakers referred to in this chamber and in the Assembly, a place-of-take consultative committee has also been established, comprising eight irrigators from across Victoria’s declared systems – they are the systems that are outlined and specified in the Water Act 1989 – to provide advice to DEECA on those proposed new arrangements, and there has been advice provided from the committee on proposed conversion rules, as well as rationing areas and extraction shares. It has also provided advice around how to communicate these changes effectively with stakeholders, and this is again part of the messaging, the conversation, the communication and the additional time that is needed and appropriate as part of this bill and the extended commencement date of July 2024.
Information about the new framework has been published on the Victorian Water Register website, and I would encourage anybody who is interested and would like to see that information to jump onto the site. That is about helping water users to understand and prepare for the changes, and several online, as I indicated in my contribution, webinars and face-to-face presentations have been provided to stakeholders and agencies about the changes and the proposed rules. We have therefore – and I am trying to perhaps distil this a little for you, Dr Mansfield – been in pretty constant conversation with communities, whether through the consultative committee or indeed through those declared rural system water corps. So this is part of an ongoing provision-of-information, discussion, receipt-of-questions and response framework, and that will continue as part of the work to provide information on the changes to the framework and the way in which place-of-take approval systems will be amended for the benefit of water users and for the benefit of transparency as we move through this additional time following the impact of the floods.
Clause agreed to; clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
New clause (14:28)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Mansfield, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which inserts a new clause and is a test for your amendment 2.
Sarah MANSFIELD: I move the first of my amendments:
1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 5 –
“5A What is recorded in the water register about water shares?
For section 24(b) of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Act 2021 substitute –
‘(b) for paragraph (f) substitute –
“(f) whether any person who holds a water allocation under the water share does not hold a water-use licence that authorises the use of water under that water allocation on land and does not intend to hold such a water-use licence; and”.’.”.
I will speak to both, because the second is contingent on the first one passing. These amendments, if successful, would allow for the Victorian government to make records regarding water shares without an association with land publicly available on the water register. As some of those in the chamber would be aware, in 2007 the Victorian government unbundled land from water. By 2009, 5 per cent of high-reliability entitlements in northern Victoria were not associated with land, and in 2018 this figure had grown to 12 per cent, and while the scale of non-land-user water ownership has grown since unbundling came into effect, transparency measures have lagged behind. We do not know the full extent of this practice or have adequate information on the entities involved, and no-one we have asked has been able to provide this information, so we introduce an amendment to this house to increase the information publicly available regarding corporate, institutional and other non-land-using investors. Amendment 1 introduces that water shares without an association with a water-use licence and where there is no intent to hold such a water-use licence must be recorded on the water register, and amendment 2 essentially makes this information exempt from any regulation which would impede it from being publicly available.
We appreciate that, if passed, this legislative change will require further administrative work by the department and will need regulatory measures to support the implementation through processes that determine an intent to hold a water use licence, but we do not believe that these are insurmountable hurdles.
What we would actually like to see is full transparency of the water market, with everyone who holds water shares listed on the water register. There are many stakeholders and community members who have indicated that they want to see this. However, we have heard the concerns of some smaller farmers who feel that they may be put at risk of predatory behaviour by larger corporations who will try to buy them out of their water. This amendment does not affect those smaller farmers or in fact anyone with an associated use for the water. It is about shining a light on those investors and big corporations who are exploiting our water market purely for profit without concern for the future of our rivers or our environment. The people of Victoria deserve to know who owns our water.
Harriet SHING: Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for explaining the rationale for the amendment and indeed the other amendment that you have put around transparency. I just want to go to a number of the elements of your amendment that are problematic for a range of reasons, including as they relate to intent and to the way in which intent is purported to be maintained through an ongoing record. Having this as a precursor to a requirement for information being published means the accuracy of that information then becomes paramount. If we are not able to maintain accuracy, including as that might relate to really understanding, reflecting on and reporting on the nature of intent – intent that might change over time – then there is an enormous risk of unintended consequences around the rigour and the confidence in the system and the register overall. This would erode in significant part the work towards rigour, integrity and a system that operates transparently in the way that we have worked so hard to achieve. It is not clear how an ongoing record of intent could in fact be captured in a way that is meaningful and that is accurate. There are different grades of intent, including as they may evolve or change over time, including as they may be reflected in people’s conduct or their representations as made, for example, to a corporation, to government or to any sort of regulatory body. That is again a very difficult thing to ascertain, to police or to oversight and then to act upon.
Making sure that we have specifics in regulation rather than in legislation is actually an appropriate approach to the way that we provide for that flexibility, as I indicated in my summing-up. This enables us to have a measure of dexterity that will, to my mind, actually address some of the issues that you have just raised in speaking to your amendment and that will look to address issues around manipulation through those discussions of non-water users and regulation of those water markets.
Going to the point I made earlier about the way in which we manage compliance and enforcement, going to the rigour that Victoria has in the way that we set out that framework and have led the charge for a range of processes for greater transparency in water systems and management systems not just in the southern basin but more broadly, it is evidence of our intent to do this in a way that does not just reflect better practice, does not just identify areas where non-compliance is taking place, but also provides greater mechanisms for efficiency for water users in ways which will deliver benefit to everyone.
We are working with the Commonwealth and with other basin states to be able to deliver on the Water Market Reform road map, including basin-wide legislation and the capacity to prevent the possibility of future water market manipulation, and that I think goes to the heart of the objective of the Greens amendment and the essence of what you have talked about in putting that amendment here today. Those transparency arrangements that were passed in 2021 were the consequence of really extensive public consultation and discussion about a social appetite to publish 2 per cent of water shares in the total system to make sure that we can actually have a measure of information that is accurate, that is not misleading and that is accessible to people who are after it in a way that does not then result in, for example, the publishing of a farmer’s details and that we have got dexterity in the system to manage water allocations and licensing shares and the way in which restrictions, shortfalls, extractions or works licence approvals might be integrated into those shares.
So it is somewhat unclear as to how we infer intent. It is going to be all but impossible to oversight the mechanism of intent as it changes and as it may relate to the way in which somebody takes and uses water for specific or various purposes. To that end, we have capacity to have additional information included where it is appropriate, where the community is consulted and, really importantly, where the community calls for it, and that is why these ongoing conversations are so important. On that basis the government will not support the amendment.
David DAVIS: I just indicate that the opposition will not support the amendment. There have been discussions between the shadow and Dr Mansfield, and I think they have been constructive. Some of the objectives involved in these amendments are reasonable, and we understand the intent behind them. The minister has laid out a number of the reasons why we would also express some concern. But inherently I think some of this is about practicality too. So on this particular occasion we will not support these amendments.
Harriet SHING: Just to pick up on a number of the things that Mr Davis has said, and perhaps to give you some greater comfort following what you have talked about, Mr Davis, for avoidance of any doubt, the names of the largest water share owners, so owners greater than 2 per cent, including the individuals, will be listed on the register and information about allocation amounts with more than 20 trades per year will be listed on the register. The website will continue, as I said, to publish additional information, including lists of every water share and allocation transaction with volume and price. Alongside annual reports and long-term market analysis there will be that detailed and accurate information to support market participants and stakeholders to make decisions about water markets.
To perhaps close off on that point, regulations will also be used to exclude public search for water allocations, so public search for water shares and entitlements will continue to be based on an identification number and accompanied by the payment of a small fee, fees which can be set through the exercise of power by the water minister.
We are in a position to reflect what the community had said around reporting the names of large water owners and that being set at 2 per cent. That was as a consequence of community consultation and a diverse range of opinions from irrigators, water market participants, the wider agricultural and water industry and the general community. The definition of ‘large’ was a big part of those consultations and discussions, and the greatest support came in at defining it as anybody who owns over 2 per cent of water in a system. And the community was really clear that it did not support release of all individual information, including names, to achieve better water market transparency.
New clause negatived.
Clause 6 (14:39)
Sarah MANSFIELD: Just following on from the discussion we have just had around transparency, does the minister have any intentions to increase transparency through regulation?
Harriet SHING: The way in which the regulations apply already enables that level of, as I said, dexterity around the information that can be sought and can be provided. There is a number of protections that also exist following that community consultation, as I indicated. When we go to providing the information that communities want, we want to continue to have further conversations about what that might look like. I am really happy in practical terms to continue those conversations with you about how that evolves over time. I think we have had a number of good, direct conversations about your position on a range of matters – the subject of water market reform, transparency and compliance within various systems – and as that evolves it might be something we can put a bit more shape around as far as the sort of thing that you are looking at goes, but there are inbuilt mechanisms to regulation for a range of different things to be considered. If you want to be more specific now, by all means I am very happy to work through that. Otherwise we can continue to have conversations about individual and general matters as they might come up, because it seems to me that there is an element of speculation in the sorts of matters you might be referring to.
Sarah MANSFIELD: Are there any specific measures regarding water market transparency that the minister is currently considering implementing using the provisions under regulation?
Harriet SHING: Thanks, Dr Mansfield, for that question. DEECA, as I indicated earlier, is delivering on a range of things to increase water market transparency – so that is the publication of the names of companies with 2 per cent or more in a system on the register. It is also about new requirements to provide clarity on different types of trade, and it is unclear what kind of purchase or transfer has occurred and what the price has been for that; undertaking an annual water broker audit, which is a list of the names of water brokers who meet those government standards and auditing requirements associated with the use of Victoria’s water broker portal, and again that is a portal that is on the Victorian Water Register website, so again it is consolidation of information which itself lends a measure of transparency; and providing comprehensive water market information and analysis on the register website. New accessible information products have been added, such as the Water Market Watch. That is a mobile application that provides information on water prices, intervalley trade opportunities and allocation announcements, as well as the ‘Where can I trade’ live schematic that provides detailed information on intervalley trade opportunities.
Those regulations will be crafted to give effect to transparency based on existing consultation, as I said earlier, but this could evolve over time, again, as I have mentioned earlier, around consultation and when and as community views might change. We are building new water register infrastructure that gives us a better functionality for those transparency measures as well. But one of the things that we do need to make sure that we do in the passage of this bill is have a system that operates effectively from 1 July whilst also providing that additional layer of time and the opportunity for ongoing conversations around transparency and accountability, including through the register.
Sarah MANSFIELD: Minister, with respect to the amendments we previously put forward, there was mention of transparency measures like this potentially having unintended consequences, and I was curious as to what some of those unintended consequences might be.
Harriet SHING: One example of an unintended consequence might be that if, for example, there is a requirement in legislation of intent and that intent changes and then changes back again or changes and then changes in a different direction and the system does not keep pace with that, then there may well be a significant detriment to the party that has notified of an intent and therefore a deterrent for people to notify intent. There are challenges associated with enforcement and with compliance, where intent must be drawn from certain circumstances and based on the identities, the conduct, the mindset – for want of a better term – of individuals or entities and the division of the use of allocations within a share. So this is the sort of unintended consequence that may well lead perversely to a disincentive for people to participate in those compliance measures, which are there in the first instance to provide a measure of transparency and accountability. That is the sort of thing that might yield very deleterious practical consequences, not just for that user, who may well be up against penalties, restrictions or in a worst-case scenario prohibitions, and that is in fact not what we want to achieve. We want to achieve that transparency, that accountability. We want to continue to lead the pace as far as the water register and those mechanisms of accountability go, but we also want to make it an accessible framework for water users to be part of a system which has a meaningful set of parameters by which enforcement can occur.
Sarah MANSFIELD: How many individuals or entities does the minister believe will meet the 2 per cent threshold for information to be made publicly available on the water register?
Harriet SHING: At the moment I think we have got about 15 corporations listed on the water register. If that does change over time, again, that information would be published, which is sort of the point of this 2 per cent or more. That transparency reform would mean that that information is available online. That, I hope, gives you a sense of the fact that the intention here is to enable people, including in the way that you just have, to understand the share within a system that is taken up by people, legal entities or individuals with more than 2 per cent of a system.
Sarah MANSFIELD: Would the minister consider following New South Wales lead in requiring that all members of Parliament record water ownership and share components within their annual declaration of interest?
Harriet SHING: There are not any proposals to create additional mechanisms for reporting, but completely separate to that, the register of interests that operates for Victorian Parliamentarians requires people to register on a document published by the Parliament of Victoria interests such as those that would be captured in the scenario that you are talking about. This is about the way in which a parliamentary accountability mechanism operates as distinct from what I think you are saying about water instruments, so very happy to get some clarification from you on that. But in the same way that you have to declare, as I declare, for example, my membership of the Donkey Society of Victoria, more significantly, or substantively, if you do have a water share, it would be anticipated that you would be required to confirm that interest and indeed, as I recall on my feet now, a matter which might give rise to a perceived conflict of interest, if that helps.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (14:50)
Sarah MANSFIELD: What is the intention of making a general place-of-take approval enduring?
Harriet SHING: Essentially what we want to have, Dr Mansfield, is a situation whereby approval is not required to be constantly sought where an account goes to zero. We want to make sure that again we do not see users left essentially without a system where that renewal does not take place. Again this is about a more efficient framework and making sure that we have that framework to improve on managing those approvals to take water and to have that water delivered in a declared system. It is about certainty of rights, it is about extraction rights in the rare event of a shortfall – so what that extraction share looks like – and it is about the flexibility to manage their own delivery risks. As I indicated in my summing-up, this is of particular relevance downstream from the Barmah Choke for making sure that we have the preparedness because we have anticipated the risks of shortfalls occurring in that context.
Making sure that we have that efficiency built in through the amendments proposed by this bill will provide a greater measure of certainty for water users. It will streamline the way in which the system operates, it will remove that risk of lapse and it will also make sure that over time we get that better buy-in from water users around the systems as they operate around the education, the enforcement, the compliance and the efficiency mechanisms overall, so this is about making sure that we do provide people with that measure of ease of use. We know that primary producers, irrigators and environmental water licence holders are in a position to use and to understand the impact of the use from their systems. Where and how water is taken, bought and sold is able to be understood uniformly and consistently where that is in a position to be able to be the subject of ongoing discussions around how our declared rural water corporations are working alongside water users to explain changing circumstances and conditions, again going back to my point earlier about climatic change and volatility and what it looks like to encounter the eventuality of a shortfall.
Sarah MANSFIELD: Has the government considered any potential risks of them being enduring and not requiring periodic reapproval?
Harriet SHING: Dr Mansfield, in coming up with this framework, there is a balancing of risk against benefit. Risk can never be removed entirely. It is about the way in which it is managed. The objective of the enduring approval is to provide a greater measure of certainty and efficiency for users at the end point and access to the system which is intended to operate itself in an enduring fashion. Were that not to occur and were an approval to lapse because of the total use of volume within a share, the impact of that would be more significant than the risk of deficiency in decision-making or lack of transparency because of the existence of an enduring approval, where we have compliance and enforcement mechanisms, transparency and publication mechanisms, including through the water register, built in in the way that is anticipated and proposed by this bill. So there are risks inherent in any system involving licensing and allocations, involving shares and conditions. This is a system like any other. There is risk in any system where there is an interface between user and market. This is where again, in the interests of providing ease and efficiency, compliance, transparency and enforcement, the enduring approvals process is something which falls on the side of something on balance which is much more significantly beneficial where those risks can otherwise be managed.
Clause agreed to; clauses 8 to 22 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time.
In doing so I wish to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, and I move that it do pass.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.