Thursday, 8 February 2024

Water policy

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:17): (410) My question is for the Minister for Water. Minister, will you confirm that Melbourne Water has struck a deal with the Wadawurrung and that that will give them culturally specific rights over Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant, and will you outline what those rights are?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (14:17): Well, Mr Davis, you are nothing if not utterly predictable, because one of the things that I knew was going to happen when I opened the paper this morning to see your various theories on cultural heritage management plans was indeed a precursor to another conspiracy by you as to the way in which decisions are taken by water authorities.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, question time is an opportunity for government ministers to answer questions, not to go on a frolic about the opposition.

The PRESIDENT: I will call the minister back to the question.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, one of the great challenges that I have, and one of the great difficulties that I have, with this line of questioning, which I think is more than a little nastier than earlier questions that you have asked about the way in which allocations, dividends and payments are made and decisions are taken by water authorities is that this might well be forgiven for being considered an ugly little patch-up for a decision taken by the coalition to walk away from a commitment to treaty made last October.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, the minister is defying your ruling. The job of ministers in question time is to answer questions, not to attack the opposition.

The PRESIDENT: I am not so sure that she defied my ruling, because she did go to how decisions are made in her portfolio, but I will call her back to the question.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, let us talk about the engagements and partnerships with First Nations communities, leaders and people around the state, including as they interface with water. For avoidance of any doubt and to perhaps pre-empt any disinformation or misinformation, authorities, agencies, departments and indeed I would hope all levels of government partner with First Nations organisations and communities to make sure that we are in the process of meeting legal requirements for the work being undertaken. That includes a suite of environmental, health and safety and other obligations that inform this work. I know, and Melbourne Water has been clear, that it makes absolutely no apology for working closely with the community and stakeholders, including traditional owner groups. So individual projects are guided by government policy, and therefore within the realms of each discussion about each project and the way in which those decisions are taken, close engagement happens, Mr Davis, in a way that is perhaps a little more intricate than you might appreciate –

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, President, further to standing order 8.07(1), the minister is now clearly going off on a different frolic of her own. The question was very specific about the nature of the agreement in this instance, so I would ask you to draw the minister back to that question.

The PRESIDENT: I do not uphold that point of order. People need to be questioned on longwinded preambles too, because they form part of the question, and so the minister –

A member interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Well, I will take back that terminology – long preambles. The chamber needs to accept there are many rulings that preambles form part of the question, so I do not uphold the point of order. The minister is being relevant to the question.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, I do not want to defy your ruling, but I am just wanting an explanation. We have to give some context to the question. Mr Davis needed to do that, and I would say that this was not a long preamble, as you describe, to the question. It was very simple – one sentence and then one question. I do not want to defy you, but I do think there needs to be an understanding about context when questions are asked.

The PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, I did withdraw the word ‘long’, and I accept that maybe I misused it. Presidents Chamberlain, Atkinson, Smith – these are not my rulings. Probably greater people than me have made these rulings, so I bow to my great predecessors on some of these things. Anyway, take the preamble away, I still determine that the minister is being relevant to the question. I will call the minister to continue.

Harriet SHING: Thank you very much. So, Mr Davis, if you would have a look on Melbourne Water’s website, you would actually see the partnership agreements that Melbourne Water has, including with traditional owner organisations. That has been informed as much as anything else by the discussion in this Parliament back in 2016, a discussion that you actually voted to support, in relation to cultural heritage and the work that is being undertaken to enable greater enforcement in relation to those who do not respect Aboriginal heritage and those who do not comply with the cultural heritage management plans. Melbourne Water is proud to support those partnerships, and that work goes on and will go on.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:23): My question was actually very specific about rights: will you outline what those rights are? The minister has defiantly failed to do that. But in that circumstance, I will ask the following question: will the minister confirm that the Wadawurrung have certain veto powers over key management decisions in respect of Melbourne’s sewage treated at the Western Treatment Plant?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (14:24): What a disappointing follow-up from you, Mr Davis. The discussions that we have across the board and through organisations and entities that operate under state legislation are guided and ought to properly be guided and informed by principles of respect and a move toward self-determination. That may well be a concept increasingly anathema to those opposite who do not accept that there is a proper basis upon which to consider and indeed to activate a transfer of power and decision-making to traditional owners –

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, President, under 8.07(1) the answer has to be relevant from the minister. This question is very specific about whether there is a veto right in respect to management decisions. It is a very specific question; it is not about our position or previous positions. I ask you to bring the minister to order.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant to the question.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, this is actually a very straightforward question; it is a yes or no question, and the minister should answer with a clear answer.

The PRESIDENT: It is not for the President to force the minister to answer in any way other than how she sees fit. I still believe she is being relevant to the question.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis – and this is going to be hard for you to swallow – it is plain wrong to suggest that any agreement with traditional owners will have an impact upon Melbourne’s water supply. In fact the way in which authorities roll is to provide water, sewerage, drainage and catchment and waterway management, and agreements do not actually compromise this obligation.