Thursday, 15 August 2019

 Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:04): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill reintroduces and expands changes to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It amends the Water Act 1989 and the CALP act, the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, to provide, it claims, for the implementation of actions set out in Water for Victoria. The Water for Victoria plan the government has released sets up a series of actions. This bill expands on the original bill by proposing changes to Victoria’s compliance regime in response to a fair bit of public interest in and examination of the matters around compliance.

The bill implements the legislative change necessary, it says, to see Water for Victoria effectively implemented, enabling Aboriginal participation in governance and management and including Aboriginal recreational values in water and waterway planning and the concept of shared benefits. It aligns the timing of long-term water resource assessment for Victoria with the Murray-Darling Basin plan review in 2026, it does a revision of the salinity mitigation functions of the minister, it promotes compliance with enforcement of the act, and there are a number of other matters. Indigenous participation is a central feature. The recreational values of water are currently of course very, very significant and should be strongly protected. We as a coalition—the Liberals and The Nationals—get very concerned about steps that are taken by the current government to diminish access to water resources from time to time.

I also note that the bill does a number of things regarding compliance in the range of non-urban systems. In 2017–18 there were 14 prosecutions for breaches and an alleged 1625 breaches reported. It is reported to us that these breaches were largely minor breaches and the larger number is due to greater technical capacity to detect such breaches through the implementation of new technology. Most of the cases were dealt with with an advisory approach.

I have made the point that this does allow cultural values and recreational values a significant role. There is a requirement to consult with Aboriginal Victorians by giving notice to the representative of the specified registered Aboriginal party and to invite submissions when preparing a water supply protection plan. The consultative committees, under the provisions in clause 21, will include the specified Aboriginal party, and there is also a focus on a sustainable water strategy for the long haul. Clause 24 amends the obligations of the Victorian Environmental Water Holder to consider opportunities to provide for Aboriginal cultural values and uses of waterways, and social and recreational uses and values of waterways, consistent with other legislative obligations.

With respect to salinity, the bill provides for the determination of salinity impact zones in the Mallee region and gives the minister a number of powers to fix charges for works and measures to mitigate or offset and manage salinity impacts. The scheme currently exists, but these amendments will enable these functions to be delegated to the relevant water authorities and catchment management authorities where that is appropriate.

With the matter of water resource assessment, the bill maintains the existing long-term water resource assessment period for southern Victoria. With respect to compliance and enforcement, as I say, there are a number of strengthened aspects of offences in the bill, with the aim of promoting compliance and enhancing enforcement. The changes include increased penalties and the introduction of more specific serious offences.

There are a number of other aspects of this that I will comment on. No regulatory impact statement has been carried out for the declaration of salinity impact changes, despite the fact that the declaration of a salinity impact zone has an impact on property rights—a significant impact. There are some legitimate questions to be asked on that, and I give the minister notice that we will take this bill into the committee stage when the second-reading debate has concluded. The government acknowledges that one may be necessary, but it has got latitude to carry out a regulatory impact statement after the bill is passed. It is probably putting the cart before the horse. It would be better if the RIS was carried out before the change was made. Victoria should conduct its long-term water resource assessment before the Murray Basin plan review in order to have contemporary scientific data to argue the state’s interests through the basin plan review. An assessment done now can account for water recovery and future water recovery under agreements and contracts entered into by Victoria. That seems to be contrary to the government’s position.

I note that my colleague Steph Ryan in the other place has consulted very widely on this bill, including many of the relevant authorities as well as, in particular, the Victorian Farmers Federation. The water customer consultative committees that are relevant were consulted as well.

The opposition will seek to move amendments to this bill, and I ask for them to be circulated if possible.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr DAVIS pursuant to standing orders.

Mr DAVIS: The amendments are a relatively straightforward set of changes that seek to ensure that the definition of environmental water or environmental water reserve in the Water Act 1989 includes environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. They are straightforward and reasonable, and we would certainly seek the support of the chamber on those matters. What I would say in the context of this is that Victoria has to be very careful, and I know that my colleague Steph Ryan has strongly argued the case for Victoria. I just want to make some general comments here about our position with respect to water. We have obviously had severe drought across much of Australia. I think the government here was slow to recognise the impact of that, for example, in Gippsland, and many in this chamber—

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: You were—you were very slow to respond.

Ms Pulford: Rubbish. As if you’d know what goes on anyway.

Mr DAVIS: Well, I listen to what goes on here, and I hear, I read the clips and I see the steps. The Minister for Regional Development was very slow in getting active on some of these matters. Leaving that aside, I will make some other comments. Clearly we have a significant drought through much of the basin region going north into Queensland and into parts of New South Wales, and this has had a very significant effect over a long period. You can only be moved by the impact that this has had on many families, many farms and many businesses, and there are long-term challenges for the state and for the country as we go forward.

I want to make the point thoughtfully that Victoria as we go forward has got to be very careful to protect its interests. I am not actually in this instance suggesting the government has not; I am actually making the point that this is a longer term challenge for all of Victoria. Victoria is a state that indeed, going back to the Kennett government days, has actually had more advanced, more defined, more complex water arrangements and water markets than other states. Consequently, as the relevant national authorities, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and others, have gone hunting for water, it has been easier to find here, and the impact has been greater. We need to recognise that removing water from small towns often in a piecemeal way actually has a significant effect not only on the land and the impact there but also on the social structure of towns. We cannot distinguish or separate the fact that there are social impacts that occur with some of these water changes.

In the long haul Victoria needs to make sure that it maintains its share of that water. Much of the water of course falls in Victoria, and as some will remember there were difficult challenges faced in this state when farm dams and others were more closely regulated—again, Victoria leading the national focus and regulation of these areas. It is still far more advanced, which is not to say that there is not further work to do, because there is. But the issue here, I think, is that the political leverage of a number of other states—Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales—is significant, and Victoria is always at risk of getting a raw deal out of these national and federal arrangements. Again, this is not a point-in-time commentary; this is a longer sweep of history. We need to be very focused on ensuring that other jurisdictions take the appropriate steps. We need to make sure that the heavy lifting is done evenly, the heavy lifting is done in a fair way, the impacts are not concentrated in areas of Victoria and we do not bear a disproportionate and unreasonable burden of many of the adjustments that are made as water is more tightly regulated, more tightly charged and more tightly managed.

These are very significant impacts that occur on communities where water is withdrawn through a range of different processes. I want to put on record the work that has been done by Ms Ryan with her wide consultation and her good understanding of many of these issues. I also want to pay tribute to Ms Lovell for the work that she has done in this area over a longer period as well. We need to make sure that our interests, both higher up in catchments and into those irrigation districts, are actually protected, and the need is there to make sure that we advocate quite strongly on these matters. With those comments I am going to let others in the chamber speak. I indicate that we will move to a committee stage later, asking a number of questions and seeking to amend the bill.

 Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:17): I take the opportunity to also rise to speak on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill makes various changes to the Water Act 1989. One is that it will give some flexibility to the minister to look at the plans from 2018 to 2025, give Aboriginal communities some further say in our water management system and also make some changes to make sure we address the current issues the state is facing—in fact the country is facing—in relation to water resources and the threat of drought, which we know is still hitting the country hard, particularly in New South Wales, Queensland and parts of Victoria. It does not look like that is going to change anytime soon.

Obviously water in this state and in this country is a very scarce resource, and it is always a challenge for governments and communities to deal with that. I think it is something that all levels of government need to put effort into to make sure we protect that resource and we make it as efficient as possible to make sure that irrigators are able to receive the necessary water allocations they need to continue to grow crops and to generate the food which this country needs and the world needs. So it is very important that we maintain an efficient system, and in October 2016 the state government announced an investment of $537 million over a four-year period for projects to strengthen water security for communities and to protect jobs and agriculture, as I talked about, and also to recognise Aboriginal water values and to improve environmental health. That is an investment by the state government to make sure we address that issue.

Also, it is important that we continue to maintain enough water for our residents, for just human consumption. Notwithstanding that we have had some reasonable rain, it is not enough obviously that our reservoirs, to my understanding, are still under 60 per cent. Thank God for former Labor governments. The Bracks government had the foresight to actually build a desalination plant. For a number of years, even when I came to this place in 2013, the Liberal-National parties—including the period of four years when they were in government—basically kept hammering on about why the hell we built the desalination plant. It was built to provide that security I talked about, to make sure that we are able to confront the current situation in relation to water and water resources. The desalination plant is now operational and is supplying water to Melbourne, and that water has been pumped into the reservoirs to make sure there is enough capacity.

It is important that we do that for Melburnians, basically the people in greater Melbourne, and for Geelong and other regional cities, as the water system is all interconnected. Because the desal plant is operational and is able to provide that water, we do not have to draw on other water resources—for example, from Eildon and various other dams. We can allow that to be used for irrigators and also for the environment. I think that is very important. The other side have failed to accept that or understand that approach. Basically their argument is, ‘It costs so much money. We don’t know why you invested in the desalination plant’. Mr Davis talked about the issue of the drought. They are the very reasons why we have invested in that plant. The very reason also goes back to the Bracks-Brumby governments, when millions of dollars were invested in putting in place efficient irrigation systems in the Goulburn Valley in the foodbowl area to try to save water from evaporation. I think that was a groundbreaking project which has delivered a significant amount of water savings. It has enabled irrigators to use that scarce resource to make sure they continue on with their food production.

This government has invested a great deal in making sure that we protect the scarce resource, making sure irrigators have still got enough water to continue their production, making sure the population of Victoria and greater Melbourne and major cities around the state have still got access to water, and hopefully we will not have to go back to the water restrictions we had 10 to 15 years ago. Also, what is more important is to make sure there is enough flow in the river system. We addressed the issue of salinity and made sure that we still have a healthy river system in Victoria. They are the three areas the government is focusing on, and it is delivering on them. This bill will actually work towards those aims.

I will now go to some of the main features of what the bill provides. The bill establishes greater recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in planning for and the management of waterways and catchments; requires greater consideration of the community’s recreational values of waterways; and also improves compliance with and enforcement of laws under the Water Act 1989 and water regulations. I think that is a very important aspect: making sure that people are compliant with the legislation, and when people are not compliant with these laws then enforcement is basically used. We should enforce the law. I think that is very important because unless we have very strong enforcement people would simply disregard the water regulations and we would just have chaos.

The bill also provides a stronger framework for the minister’s salinity mitigation program that offsets the salinity impacts of irrigation in the Mallee region. It also resets the date to undertake a long-term assessment of water resources in northern Victoria from 2018 to 2025 to align the timing of the assessment with the completion of Victoria’s program of works and measures to meet the Murray-Darling Basin plan requirements and with the commonwealth’s review of the basin plan in 2026. I think I touched on that earlier. The reason we are extending that is to give the minister some flexibility to be able to deal with whatever prevailing changes occur during that period. The minister will be able to make the necessary adjustment to make sure we deal with these challenges. I think providing that flexibility to the minister is very important. The bill will give that flexibility to the minister and make sure that those matters are addressed.

The bill also looks at reducing red tape. The bill amends the Water Act 1989 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and is a consolidation of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, with additional amendments to improve the compliance and enforcement provisions for water which I touched on earlier.

The bill will give traditional owners, Aboriginal people, more say in how we deal with water resources, and that is really important for a number of reasons. Aboriginal people have been on this continent for over 60 000 years, and they are probably one of the most environmental people you will find around the globe. So I think involving them in the process is very important. The bill requires the inclusion of traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians in consultative committees and on the Victorian Catchment Management Council; consideration of Aboriginal cultural values and traditional ecological knowledge in the management of waterways and catchments; and also consultation with traditional owner groups for the preparation of management plans and strategies for waterways and catchments.

The bill also obliges the water corporations, the catchment management authorities and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, when carrying out their functions under the Water Act, to consider opportunities to provide for Aboriginal cultural values of water and waterways consistent with their other obligations under the act. These amendments partner with effective programs on the ground. The government is investing $4.7 million in its Aboriginal water program for locally based projects and to build capacity through a network of over 20 Aboriginal water officers across the state.

I talked earlier about compliance. I think that it is very important that we do have a proper enforcement regime in place, because unless we do then we will have all sorts of abuse of water resources. We have seen some of that upstream in the Murray in Queensland and New South Wales. If we look at the Four Corners report on the ABC, there was significant abuse of water rights by miners and by cotton growers. Basically they had an inland sea built and were taking water out of the system. I think that is real, absolute vandalism, and I think that should be condemned and dealt with harshly because we basically end up paying the price, the people downstream and in other states, just for the benefit of the few. That is why I think enforcement is very important. The bill will significantly improve the provisions for compliance with and enforcement of water laws. As I said, that was as a result of the misappropriation of water in New South Wales in 2017.

It is also good to point out that in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s basin-wide compliance review of 2017 Victoria received an excellent scorecard for regulating rights to water and other activities that can harm our water resources and waterways to the standard required under the basin plan. Of course there is always room for improvement, and that is why we are making these changes. But I am actually pleased that this government, after that review, and our state is doing the right thing. We will always continue to aspire to continue to improve so we can make sure we can deliver on these resources.

I talked earlier about the long-term water resource assessment plan. I will finish off by talking about the issue with the salinity mitigation, which is a big issue not just in Victoria but around the country, and that is why it is important. Because we are using so much water the salinity obviously within the water table is coming up, and so we have got a major issue with salinity. That is why it is important to maintain a healthy river system—so that it can be flushed all the way to the ocean. We need to make sure we address those salinity issues, because if we get to a stage where we overuse our current water resources we could just finish up basically with salty water all over the place, particularly in the water table, and that is no good to anyone. We cannot have desalination plants in every region in Victoria to try to address that issue. That is why it is important to maintain healthy waterways, to make sure, basically, that water salinity is kept to a minimum and that we have a healthy river system so that these things can be flushed out. I think these are important changes to the current legislation. It is a great bill, and with these comments I commend the bill to the house.

 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10:32): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. While the Greens will support this bill, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of our concerns with this bill in particular and with water management in Victoria in general. Victoria’s First People understand better than any of us how central water is to life. So it is good to see this bill take some first steps in recognising the connection that First People have to water and the acknowledgement that First Peoples’ knowledge of water management has been built over thousands of generations. Yet this bill, and the recognition it delivers, is only a first step and a long way from delivering true Aboriginal sovereignty. The bill only provides for Aboriginal inclusion and representation ‘wherever possible’ and only requires statutory bodies to ‘consider opportunities’ to provide for Aboriginal cultural values and uses of waterways. So although the Greens are pleased to see this bill heading in the right direction, I also look forward to seeing the current treaty process in Victoria truly centre First People and their knowledge in the decision-making about our precious waterways.

The bill also modifies the long-term water assessments which are provided for in Victoria’s Water Act 1989. These assess declining water availability or the deterioration in the health of our waterways. Yet we do not need a legislative review process to know that our fresh water is in trouble. Water storage in our dams is low and continues to decline as droughts continue and worsen. River communities, including First Peoples and farmers, are living on rivers that have been forever changed and damaged by the past century of exploitation, and we are seeing mass fish deaths not just in New South Wales but also in Victoria. Some of these fish that have died have lived in our rivers since before World War I.

In this context there are two things that we need our government to be honest about: agriculture production and climate change. Agriculture is the biggest user of water, yet this government uses the language of communities to hide corporate agriculture’s exploitation of water, often at the cost of those same communities. Let me illustrate this with an example. In Victoria almonds have become our biggest horticultural export. Almond production in Victoria has been allowed to grow unchecked. Between 2005 and 2017 almond production more than tripled. Almond growers can afford to buy extremely expensive water over other water purchasers because of the very high value of their crop. In reality this means that other users can no longer access water. Next time someone says that it is the greenies putting farmers out of business, perhaps ask yourself if it is the government’s failure to regulate industry or support a planned transition between industries that is actually putting farmers out of business.

Mining is another big user of water that will increasingly compete with agriculture, towns and cities and ecosystems for water. We need to get serious about transitioning out of unnecessary and destructive mining, particularly coalmining in the Latrobe Valley, or we will face a future where precious water is used to prop up destructive industries instead of supporting life.

And then there is climate change, which has also had a number of negative impacts on our water. In Victoria it is reducing rainfall and increasing drought. It is also changing the nature of rainfall events, with more extreme weather events with concentrated rain and flooding. The Greens strongly believe that climate change must be centred in all future planning for water in Victoria. Under the current Water Act, if the long-term water assessment shows there are problems for our water, this triggers a formal assessment process and the option to change rights to water. This is a powerful tool for balancing the different users of water and for saying, ‘Climate change means there is less water, and that means going back to the drawing board on how much water different users can have’. Recent experience shows that we will all need to do this. We only need to look at the current state of the Murray-Darling and our long-term water storage predictions. Therefore I am disappointed to see that this bill includes amendments that dilute the process for reassessing future water rights. This bill makes the process just one of a range of options, and it is easy to see how a government captured by the corporate irrigation lobby would choose not to take the difficult but necessary step of reflecting the climate change reality in who has access to that water.

I will finish up by calling on this government to take responsibility for delivering a genuine plan for water in our state. This plan must recognise that climate change is reducing water, it must truly centre Aboriginal sovereignty and knowledge in decision-making about our water, it must curb water exploitation by corporate agriculture and mining and it must support farming communities in this transition. I also call on the government to end native forest logging in Victoria as continued logging is taking water out of our catchments and reducing our state’s capacity to tackle the climate crisis.

 Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:37): I rise to speak in support of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Some time ago I saw a movie, and I have some lasting impressions of that movie. It was science fiction. It was about an invasion by some aliens coming to earth not to take away our gold, not to take away our diamonds and not to take away all the resources but to take away the most precious thing that they were lacking—namely, water. It is true; water is the source of and a necessity for all life. Up to 90 per cent of our bodies is actually made up of water.

It is my great pleasure to speak about the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The bill, in summary, will establish greater recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in the planning for and the management of waterways and catchments. This is very much appropriate. Australia’s First People have been around for 60 000 years and more, and they could be considered as the first scientists in Australia in the way that they managed their agriculture and in the way they had the knowledge to manage the land, waters and fisheries. The bill also will require greater consideration of the recreation value of the waterways for communities. Water not only provides us with the supply for life, for agriculture and for everything else, but also it is a way for our recreational activities.

This bill will improve the compliance with and also the enforcement of the laws under the Water Act 1989 and also all the water regulations. The bill will also provide a stronger framework for the minister’s salinity mitigation program, which offsets the salinity impacts of the irrigation of the Mallee region in particular. It also resets the date to undertake a long-term assessment of water resources in northern Victoria from 2018 to 2025 to align the timing of the assessment with the completion of Victoria’s program of works and measures to meet the Murray-Darling Basin plan requirements and also with the commonwealth’s review of the basin plan in 2026.

The bill will also improve administration of the Water Act 1989 by reducing red tape and the complexity of the regulations. In particular the bill will amend the Water Act 1989 and also the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. It is a consolidation of the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and additional amendments to improve the compliance and enforcement provisions for water.

So please let me go to some of the key messages of the bill. As I just started with, water is fundamental for our survival and for our community’s economy and prosperity. The government’s water plan will ensure that we manage and support a healthy, sustainable environment, a prosperous economy and thriving communities for all Victorians. We in Victoria have a long and proud history of effective management of our water resources through innovative policies and through investments in efficient infrastructure and also institutional frameworks.

Now, as we are looking forward to a future of increasing water scarcity due to climate change and also due to the growing population, in particular in Victoria, we need to make sure that our management framework can deal with new and emerging issues. The community’s needs and values must be at the centre of any policy, and in particular of our water policy planning. That is why the government has already spent significant time working with key stakeholders and communities in shaping the Water for Victoria policy. The challenge is to do more with less water. By managing the water together, across our cities, across rural communities, across industry and the environment, we will find innovative, strategic and smarter ways of improving water security for the state and for all Victorians.

The last time there was a major water policy reform was in 2004, 15 years ago, with the policy entitled Our Water Our Future. The time to revisit the sector and to move forward is now. The legacy of Our Water Our Future, tested during the millennium drought, provides us with a strong foundation for reform that will ensure we are prepared for the future, a future of climate change and population growth. We will need to address the challenges of climate change and population growth and increased demand for water. The population in the state of Victoria is projected to reach 10.1 million by 2051. In particular, our regional urban centres are expected to almost double the populations that are there now. We know that over the long term climate change will mean less rainfall, less run-off into our rivers and our storages and also will bring about more extreme climatic events.

In order to achieve our goals the government had wideranging consultations with stakeholders across various departments of government, the water sector, industry groups, local governments, the environmental sector, recreational groups and of course the Aboriginal community. They provided input to the development of Water for Victoria to identify the key issues and also to contribute to the debate on future direction. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning conducted meetings across Victoria, and a range of stakeholders and community groups related to the water sector sought to help us guide the development of a water plan. Over 700 people participated in 28 workshops held across the state. The department has received over 260 formal submissions and over 400 responses from community members and stakeholder representatives who attended the workshops.

What does Water for Victoria do? It recognises and seeks to maximise and serve the benefits for productive, environmental, Aboriginal and recreational water users. It positions the water sector to play a key role in adapting to and in mitigating the risks associated with the changing climate, which is a real threat, as we have seen lately with the extreme events in Australia and elsewhere around the world. It delivers clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the water sector and local governments in the livability of our cities and our towns.

This bill does not change the existing arrangements that underpin the water sector. Any changes introduced will not be made to existing rights to hold water, our commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin plan or our focus on water efficiency in agriculture, which is one of the major drivers of our economy. It is appropriate for us to recognise and to make use of the Aboriginal cultural values and knowledge. The Victorian traditional owners have managed land and water sustainably over thousands of generations. They have cultural, spiritual and economic connection to the land, water and resources through their association and relationship with the country. Any collaboration with traditional owners and Victorian Aboriginal groups in water planning and management is a key aspect of maintaining access to country and its resources.

Water, as I mentioned, is not only essential; it is actually vital for our existence and our economic growth. It also provides a means for recreational activities. We in Victoria appreciate and know the value of our lakes, wetlands, rivers and streams as sources of recreational enjoyment. During the millennium drought we learned the important impact the recreational use of water can have on the health and the wellbeing of our communities as well as the businesses that rely on local tourism. So the government will be looking to the water industry to consider recreational values in their management and encourage communities to participate in planning.

This bill will also modernise compliance with and enforcement of water laws. Water for Victoria recognises that compliance with conditions of rights to take water is vital to maintaining the reliability of the rights and of market integrity. The compliance and enforcement regime of the Water Act is now outdated, so this bill will support the implementation of Water for Victoria, which aims to modernise the compliance and enforcement regime to reflect best practice regulation. The bill also aims to find ways to cut red tape. It supports the implementation of Water for Victoria, which aims to reduce red tape around how water corporation service districts are determined by the minister and how water corporations declare land within those districts to be serviced property. It also removes a barrier to enable water corporations to require an owner of land that has faulty plumbing causing health and environmental issues to fix those problems. With great pleasure, I commend this bill to the house.

 Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:52): It gives me pleasure to speak on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 today. Before I go into the bill—and what will surprise no-one about the Murray-Darling Basin plan—I have just got to say that one of the things I have noticed is that our most critical resource, as has been mentioned before, is water. Even Melbourne has water needs, obviously, but our problem with water needs is that I am looking now and nothing has been done or even planned, as far as I am aware, to allow for Melbourne’s increase in population—100 000 or so people a year—and we are told what we have got now does not exist. Now, I am not going to get into the debate on whether we need another dam or more desal plants at the moment—that is for another day—but we absolutely need something. The biggest issue with the original desal plant, as I remember, was that we went through this horrendous drought, someone decided to build a desal plant, and pretty well the month they turned it on the drought broke. We cannot wait. We absolutely must start planning now and moving now and getting ahead of the curve, because what we have got will only work for a while and we need to get a move on.

So getting to the bill—I am not going to go through the bill as much as everyone else already has—the big thing is that there should be greater consideration of the recognition of the recreational value of water for communities. Obviously my party was formed around the recreational values of many things as well as looking after the rural community, but delivering recreational water allows for fishing, boating and of course duck hunting. Now, all of these are legitimate recreational pursuits despite what some other people in here may think, and due consideration needs to be given to all recreational activities.

This bill covers a lot of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. It has been the topic du jour for me—or the topic of the year—and the more I learn about it the more I cannot believe it is still in existence. The next review is due in 2026. Well, we cannot wait till 2025 or 2024. We need a review and we need it now. We need someone to figure out why Victoria has—now, as of today—got 26 per cent of its allocations, South Australia has got somewhere between 50 per cent and 100 per cent and New South Wales and the Murray area have 97 per cent to 100 per cent.

A member interjected.

Mr BOURMAN: I will take you up on that interjection; absolutely it is politics. I had the pleasure over the break from Parliament to go to South Australia and the Murray via Mildura, and what blew my mind is that I was standing there in a drought-ravaged area and the water was about a foot from the top of the bank. There is water there. The Murray-Darling Basin plan means that, other than the 26 per cent that we are allocated, the rest of the water just sails down to South Australia and goes out into a man-made lake. Really, the only benefactor of this whole plan seems to be South Australia. Everyone else has to give up something, because South Australia needs X amount of litres to keep that estuarine system fresh.

If I remember correctly, apparently the science was in on Lake Alexandrina at the time, but we move down to 2019 and the science is maybe not so in. We have now got someone that was one of the original scientists saying, ‘Well, maybe not so fast. We need to have a look at this’. I do not pretend to understand the details, but I do understand that it was never completely fresh all the time, which is what we are trying to keep up. If we keep on doing this for environmental reasons, what we are actually doing is fooling ourselves, because we are changing the environment—we are running the river higher than it would naturally be at this point in time to create a false freshwater lake.

I also understand you cannot just remove the barrages and let it be a free-for-all. You need to have what they are calling lock zero basically at the mouth of the Murray before it comes into the estuarine area. I do not have a problem with that at all. But what we have now are man-made floods and man-made droughts—the Barmah Choke, for instance. The Barmah Choke should be the actual limit of how much water can get through the Murray, because that is—except when there are massive amounts of rainfall—the natural area of most restriction. As we are doing the most restriction, everything else downstream should be basically calculated on that. But what we are doing is flooding around the Barmah National Park. That has other consequences. Last year or the year before the Barmah brumbies were suffering all sorts of strife because of the flooding—it was forcing them into smaller areas.

Ms Lovell: What’s the solution? Shoot the brumbies. That’s what they’re doing; that’s their solution.

Mr BOURMAN: Well, we will get onto the brumbies another day. The point is that for environmental reasons we are absolutely riding roughshod over the environment. If that alone is not reason enough to have a look at what is going on, let alone the damage it is doing to our communities along the Murray, then I do not know what is.

I suppose one of the bigger issues for the Murray-Darling Basin plan is that there is no transparency about who has got what, who is selling what to whom and whether water rights are being separated from land. Allocations is one thing—you can have your rights, and if you are not going to use your allocation you can sell your allocation—but once you start selling rights off land it starts becoming quite complex. It gets to the point where if you sell your rights during a good period and your allocation goes with it because it is $4 a megalitre or whatever it was in the good days, when you need to buy the water back it is $600 a megalitre. It is just really creating a system begging for something to fall apart.

This morning we got some new amendments proposed for this bill. I support this bill in its base form at the moment, as does the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), I understand—they have no problems with the legislation. We got some new amendments from the Liberals this morning and they differ somewhat from the amendments that were proposed in the Assembly, so I am going to invite Mr Davis—I am assuming he is going to run with it and we are going to have a committee stage—just to answer a few questions. Why have they excluded the definition of Victorian environmental water holdings—these are the questions I would love to have asked but I ran out of time before the bill came up—and have they looked at any risks their amendments might bring in? I would also like them to let me know what the VFF thinks about their amendments. I commend this bill to the house.

 Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:59): I am pleased this morning to make a brief contribution on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. In doing so it is interesting to note that this bill reintroduces the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 with some expanded changes, but it is not so greatly different. The former coalition government, the Liberal-Nationals government between 2010 and 2014, undertook a complete rewrite of the Water Act 1989 and the Water Industry Act 1994. In this process they consulted quite widely with the Victorian community, relevant stakeholders, industry groups and farming communities as well. It was important to have that review because one had not been conducted for quite some time, and indeed they then provided some significant legislation. But when Daniel Andrews began his term of government in 2014 he shelved that information, he shelved that knowledge and he shelved the legislation that was on the table, which was rather disappointing for those who needed to see an evolution of the water acts to bring in some superior management.

In this bill there are some key measures, and they include aligning the timing of the long-term water resource assessment for the northern Victoria Murray-Darling Basin plan to have some synchronicity and to align it with a review in 2026; revising the salinity mitigation functions, which now lie within the minister’s remit; and promoting compliance and enforcement with the act. I note that in terms of compliance there is a high degree of compliance within the non-urban usage—i.e., those out in the country. I believe this is primarily because there are good technologies and measures that can be undertaken to assess how water is transmitted and used, so compliance tends to be far greater.

One of the key differences to the legislation put forward by the Liberal-Nationals government in 2014 is the inclusion of consultation with Indigenous peoples of this state. It also looks at amending the Water Act 1989 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. It obliges authorities to include Indigenous parties in this management of our waterways. In terms of Indigenous cultures, just to focus on my local electorate of Eastern Victoria Region, the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation—GLaWAC, as we affectionately call it—comprises five clans recognised under native title consent determination. They will be heavily involved in these new discussions, and I think that is most appropriate. There are over 600 traditional owners in GLaWAC and associated with GLaWAC. They provide that policy advice, strategic leadership and key initiatives within their region. I have met some of the board of directors and I am particularly impressed with and inspired by one particular leader who happens to be the general manager, Grattan Mullett. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions, and if you want to have someone of quiet strength, compassion, understanding and commitment to his culture but also commitment to cohesion, cooperation and unification, you need look no further than Grattan Mullett. He is a very strong leader indeed. It is important that this bill looks at and includes those cultures that can have a real insight into the values of water and the use of water on country—certainly as the Gunaikurnai would call it—in our patch.

I will not talk for too long, but in relation to other measures it is important to note that in terms of Eastern Victoria Region water is the most vital ingredient in our rural communities. Recently we have had welcome rain, but rest assured that in East Gippsland there is still crippling drought. East and Central Gippsland farming communities are certainly still on their knees. I know that this month Bairnsdale has had only 7 millilitres. Many other regions have had considerably more—inches, in the old scheme—but certainly East Gippsland is still very much in the grip of drought. There is painted-on green grass; there is no great substance to it. And of course our farming communities have spent a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of heartache trying to keep their core herd, their core stock, in survival mode, funding a lot of resources into fodder supply et cetera. It is really disappointing to see that still the government—and I had a response from the Minister for Agriculture only recently to say this—is not looking at rate relief. Indeed the East Gippsland and Wellington shires and Latrobe City Council are unified in crying out for rate relief, but this government is still ignoring that cry. It is fair, it is equitable and it is needed.

I just put on the record that the minister wrote in her reply to me that the government has put some $40 million across the whole state into drought support. Well, across the border in New South Wales the Liberal-Nationals government has put in something in the vicinity of $1 billion worth of support for their farming communities due to the drought. So it is super important that this government not only continue to measure and look, as they inform me they are doing, but also respond with particular measures that will actually support the survival of our farmers.

Also in relation to the importance of water in our region, the Macalister irrigation district, affectionately also known as MID, is certainly a shining light in our agricultural production in that central area—that southern Tinamba area and Newry et cetera. Indeed the project, the MID upgrades, have been occurring over the past decade with bipartisan support from federal and state governments. It covers 50 000 hectares, and at the moment there are 33 000 hectares under irrigation. It really does provide a very crucial role in delivering our agricultural needs in that area. It has world-class dairy, vegetable, horticultural and beef production, and it also generates that very important crop of fodder. It adds over $650 million to the local economy.

It started back a long, long time ago, certainly after the end of the First World War—and I will not go through the whole history of it—but it is so very important to the economy of our region. Indeed Southern Rural Water has been working on, over the period of a decade, channel automation, piping upgrades and a world-class water delivery system. In doing that, you conserve water, you make each drop and millilitre count for production and you also minimise the danger to our environmental places where there can be run-off that creates some negative effects. By delivering it succinctly and properly on farm, it really does make a huge difference.

That is why we have been so pleased that the federal government is putting in $31 million towards transforming the next phase of the Macalister irrigation district and improving its assets, and it is so very disappointing that this government has not come to the party and has not committed to its half of that remaining part. There needs to be a $31 million commitment from this government in relation to those water upgrades. I know that at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee Minister Lisa Neville spoke in relation to that. It is disappointing that she has not given that commitment. It is vital that that is finished. In the context of drought, when we can access water through this scheme, it needs to be addressed most sincerely.

I believe that Mr Davis, on behalf of our Shadow Minister for Water, Steph Ryan, is putting through some amendments to this bill. I think it is important to be able to put those through to provide some context around the commonwealth environmental water holding and bring forward also the commencement date of the northern water long-term resource alignment so that it has some synchronicity. I look forward to the committee-of-the-whole stage, where I know that there will be some significant questions. I understand that the Victorian Farmers Federation has fully supported these amendments as well.

 Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (11:10): It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I want to start by saying that this issue of water both in Victoria and across our country is one of the great political challenges for all politicians in this nation and in this state.

I see Ms Lovell is in the chamber. We share the electorate of Northern Victoria, along with others. I think the one thing that would be true for both of us when we are speaking to our constituents, whether it is primary producers, recreational users or commercial businesses, is that the issue of water is paramount for people in our electorate. We have been severely hit over the past while with a lack of rain. That has changed somewhat in the last couple of months, thankfully, but we know that we need a lot more. But if there is one issue that, universally, Australians and Victorians want us to deal with—and take the politics out of—it is to fix this water problem that we have in our great state and our great country. The other thing that I hear wherever I go throughout Northern Victoria is a high degree of faith and confidence in the Victorian Minister for Water, Lisa Neville. Ms Neville has an excellent grasp of the issues confronting my constituents in Northern Victoria, and that is certainly well understood by my constituents in terms of the way that they speak about her efforts in managing water in regional northern Victoria.

Water for Victoria is the first comprehensive statewide water plan for more than a decade, with over 69 actions, and this bill supports the implementation of several of those actions. Dr Kieu and other speakers have referred to them, but some of them, importantly, are worth going over again. This bill will establish a greater recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in the planning for and management of waterways and catchments. It will require greater consideration of the community’s recreational values of waterways, and I will come back to some of these matters in the course of my contribution. It will improve compliance with and enforcement of laws under the Water Act 1989 and water regulations. Importantly, it will provide a stronger framework for the minister’s salinity mitigation program that offsets the salinity impacts of irrigation in the Mallee region.

I just want to perhaps now touch on that a little bit more for those who do understand exactly what the issue is in the Mallee. The Mallee is underlain by a sandy aquifer containing groundwater that is as salty as sea water. It carries that water when water is put on the surface and seeps through, and where that aquifer meets with the Murray River that salty water then seeps into the mighty Murray. You do not need to have too many qualifications to understand the effect that that then has on the Murray. But of course an increase in river salinity as a result of this occurrence is dramatic for users of the river, but importantly for local and downstream users as well. It has a tremendous impact. Humans are of course impacted, as salt affects plants and productivity and hastens the replacement of infrastructure. You can image that increased salinity in the water going through water pumps et cetera and the corrosion that that causes in pipes and hot water services et cetera. Of course it stands to reason that if the salty water is then used for other parts of primary production and irrigation—for livestock, for example—there will be an impact on those as well. So it is a very serious problem, and I am glad that this bill continues to focus on that very significant problem that exists in the Mallee and provides a stronger framework for the minister to be able to offset some of the salinity impacts of irrigation.

The bill also resets the date to undertake a long-term assessment of water resources in northern Victoria from 2018 to 2025. I will come back and deal with this a little bit more shortly. The bill will align the timing of the assessment with the completion of Victoria’s program of works and measures to meet the Murray-Darling Basin plan requirements with the commonwealth’s review of that plan in 2026. So you can see where that alignment does occur. Critically the bill will also improve administration of the Water Act 1989 by reducing red tape and regulatory complexity, and we all know the complexity of the management of water in this state and in this country. I think Mr Bourman touched on a number of aspects of that during his contribution.

I mentioned that the bill will establish greater recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in the planning for and management of waterways and catchments, and that is very, very important. It is very important that we include the traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians in consultative committees and on the Victorian Catchment Management Council—notwithstanding that it was their land and is their land. They also have a unique insight into the management of water. They are the oldest living culture on this planet, and they have been dealing with these issues for a very, very, very long time. It would be absurd of us not to tap into that skill and expertise that they have and ensure that their voices are properly heard. Of course there is also the consideration of their cultural values and the traditional ecological knowledge that they have in how they managed waterways and catchments long before we came and took their country.

The bill also, as I said, obliges the water corporations, the catchment management authorities and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, when carrying out their functions under the act, to consider the opportunities to provide for Aboriginal cultural values of water and waterways, consistent with their other obligations under the act. For example, how do they deliver water rights to rights holders et cetera?

These amendments partner with programs on the ground. The government is investing $4.7 million in its Aboriginal water program for locally based projects and to build capacity through a network of over 20 Aboriginal water officers across the state. This is putting real money and real action behind this initiative to ensure that the traditional owners of our land are involved in the management of our waterways and that we draw upon their expertise and their skills moving forward.

I touched briefly during my introduction on the recreational values and uses of waterways, but the bill will also require waterway and storage managers to consider the social and recreational values of waterways for our communities. An example of this is delivering on our election commitment to support recreational activities such as kayaking and fishing on our water storages and waterways. Yesterday the Minister for Fishing and Boating talked about some of the initiatives that she is undertaking in her portfolio, and this bill requires that we take all of those matters into consideration.

The bill also significantly improves the provisions for compliance with and enforcement of water laws. All of us recall the Four Corners report about what went on in New South Wales and the publicised misappropriation of water in 2017. We received, when there was a subsequent compliance review in 2017, an excellent scorecard for the way that we regulate our water rights here in Victoria and manage our other activities that could harm our water resources and waterways, and we do it in compliance with and to the standards required under the basin plan. We say that everyone should adhere to that plan. If you agree to it, if you sign up to it, then stick to it—it is not difficult. But there is room for improvement, as we know, and this bill addresses some of those needs for improvement, such as the need to be tough on water theft and related offences harming the environment and third parties.

Just in the brief time I have left I want to quickly touch on the long-term water resource assessments. The act commits the government to undertaking long-term—that is 15-yearly—assessments of Victoria’s water resources. Now, that is so important. I think just about every speaker has talked about the increase in the population that we are confronted with here in Victoria, and of course every time that population grows by one, that is a further demand that is placed on our natural resources, such as water. We have got to be cognisant of that, and we have got to be prepared and ready to deal with the issues that emerge from a growing population. It might well have been okay for someone like Peter Costello back in the day to say, ‘Have a baby for Mum, have a baby for Dad and have one for the country’, but of course there are impacts from those things. What this bill does is deliver our commitment to continue to undertake that long-term assessment of our water needs and make sure that we have got enough, that we are managing it properly and that where there is any deterioration in waterway health due to flow et cetera we are on top of those things. So what this bill will do is ensure that we undertake those long-term assessments. Where we do find there are issues, the bill will give the minister more choices for responding to these concerns. She is getting a vote of confidence from my constituents in my electorate—to a person I have never met one person in my electorate who is anything but complimentary about the minister’s handling of water in this state. Overwhelmingly people are behind what Minister Neville is doing and will be supportive of this aspect of the bill, which provides her with more options to deal with things in a manner that responds to the needs at the time.

I have talked about the salinity management issues and the other things that this bill will do, such as the increase in efficiency in the administration of the Water Act with the introduction of several red tape reduction initiatives. These include, for example, enhancing the protection of Melbourne’s sources of safe drinking water by giving Melbourne Water the power to prepare special area plans for land in its catchments that are not in protected national forests, and there are other measures.

So in summary I would say that I am pleased that we have got a bill before the Parliament that is dealing with some significant issues. As I said at the outset, I think the issue of water management in this state and in this country is a challenge for all of us across the political divide. We all know that without water, without sustainable water resources, life just does not exist. It is one of our most precious commodities, and it behoves us all to deal with this in a responsible manner. I commend this bill to the house.

 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:25): It does give me pleasure to speak on the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 in this house, a bill that will amend the Water Act 1989 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 to provide for the implementation of actions set out in the Water for Victoria plan. Water, as Mr Gepp just said, is extremely important to everyone in Victoria, but particularly in Northern Victoria, the electorate that we represent. To those of us in the irrigation district water underpins our entire economy. Not only is it is important to us in what we do; it is important to the state as well, because 40 per cent of the exports out of the port of Melbourne come from the dairy industry. Many of them come from the irrigation district in Northern Victoria.

Water has certainly become the modern-day gold. The reason that towns like Shepparton have prospered is that we have had water that has underpinned our irrigation industry and provided prosperity to the area. However, the confidence in that future has declined in recent years for a number of reasons, and the current drought is really causing concern. A lack of rain has meant a lack of water in the catchments and reduced allocations to irrigators of water for production. We have a situation at the moment where many of our dairy farmers are really struggling to survive. In fact Murray Dairy has estimated that around a third of our dairy farms will not survive this drought. The cost currently of temporary water is between $500 and $600 a megalitre. To buy water permanently it is about 10 times that.

Many farms have been left with debts on them for ongoing water delivery shares. This is because many of the farmers have been forced to sell off their water in order to pay off the debt on the farm, whether that be to banks or even sometimes just to water authorities like Goulburn-Murray Water. A lot of people have said that there have been willing sellers as part of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Willing sellers do not really exist. The sellers are people who are having to sell their water to pay off their debts. This has left many farms with ongoing debt on that farm, so even when the farm is sold it is sold without water but with a debt to pay each year for delivery shares.

Many young farmers have bought into many of those farms because they thought they had the land, they had the delivery shares and they would be able to buy water on the temporary market at a reasonable price in order to sustain their farming activities. Unfortunately with the current high price of temporary water that is not possible and the water is unaffordable to them. These are the dairy farmers that we are at particular risk of losing from the industry. To lose another whole generation of young farmers will be devastating to the dairy industry in northern Victoria.

The Murray-Darling Basin plan itself has caused considerable pain throughout the irrigation district. Certainly the additional agreement that Julia Gillard signed up to with South Australia to provide an extra 450 gigalitres of up-water must be stopped. We cannot afford to lose any more water out of our irrigation districts. We are currently at a point where the water that is available is really the bare minimum water availability needed to sustain the irrigation district. That 450 gigalitres must be stopped. I know the minister, Lisa Neville, has made her view known on this—that she also does not believe that the 450 gigalitres must go ahead. But she has to be stronger on that and strong enough to carry it in the ministerial council so that we get everyone to agree to it.

The environmental damage that is being done to our rivers and streams in pushing large amounts of environmental water downstream, almost year-round, is amazing. It is absolutely astounding. The bank erosion that is going on is appalling, and the flooding of the Barmah forest has been a significant problem as well. To say that we need more water for the environment but to do environmental damage to deliver that seems to be contradictory to me, and I cannot see how the environmentalists who are saying ‘send this water down the river’ feel that they are getting good outcomes. If they come and just have a look at the erosion done on some of the banks, they will understand that it is not a good outcome.

The Barmah forest itself needs flooding. It needs a good flooding occasionally. Riverine red gums are meant to have their feet wet. It also needs a good flooding in order to thin the forest so that we do get the large stands of red gums that we know are needed as a riverine red gum forest—not just thousands of little spindly trees. But it is not getting that really good flooding occasionally as it would in a natural flow. What we are seeing in the Barmah forest at the moment are small floods regularly, and that is not providing good outcomes for the forest. It is certainly not providing a good outcome for the animals in the forest.

In particular the impact on the brumbies has been appalling. The brumbies were starving because there was no feed for them, so the locals began to feed them to keep them healthy. What was the department’s answer to the brumbies starving? It was to go out there and shoot them, and that was just disgraceful. The brumbies are part of our forest. They are part of our heritage. They are descended from the animals that our World War I veterans let go free before they went off to war. It is known as the Australian Waler horse breed. They have heritage value and extreme sentimental value in our local area. No-one wants to see the brumbies eradicated other than this government and the department, and the way they are going about it is absolutely inhumane. They are shooting the brumbies, but they are not shooting them humanely. They are shooting them in the stomach and leaving them to die. It is just a disgrace, and something has to be done to ensure the future of the brumbies and to stop this unnecessary slaughter of brumbies in the Barmah forest.

Certainly we have a minister who says all the right things, and she appears to be listening to our irrigators. We certainly value that and we thank her for listening, but she needs to be much stronger. She needs to be authoritative enough to carry the debate in Victoria’s favour in the Labor-dominated ministerial council that makes the decisions on the Murray-Darling Basin plan, and so far we certainly have not seen her voice strong enough to even carry her Labor colleagues in that ministerial council to protect Victoria’s right to water. She needs to be much stronger on that. She needs to work with her Labor colleagues and with the Liberal-held states and the commonwealth as well to protect the water rights of Victorian irrigators.

Solar farms in the irrigated agricultural area are another issue that must be stopped. There are three applications for solar farms in Greater Shepparton at the moment. There is a great deal of concern about putting solar farms on irrigated agricultural land, not only because the government has reduced the footprint of the irrigation district so we have less irrigated land in the state but also because of the heat island effect. Many of our orchardists in particular are very concerned about a solar farm being put in the middle of an orchard district where they have evidence that the solar farm will raise the ambient temperature in that area. Many of our variety of fruits need certain temperatures in order to set the buds. They need the frost that we have in the Goulburn Valley in order to set the buds of those fruits. Orchardists are very concerned that the heat island effect of a solar farm could raise the ambient temperature to the point that it damages our other horticultural crops in the area.

So the Minister for Planning has those applications on his desk at the moment, and I would call on him to reject applications on irrigated agricultural land. There is plenty of land that is now outside the irrigated agricultural area that we can put solar farms on. I certainly support solar farms, and having solar farms in our part of the state, where we have more sunshine than anywhere else, makes sense. But they do not make sense on the irrigated agricultural land and they do not make sense if they put other crops at risk. The Liberal Party will be moving amendments to this bill, which I will support. With those few words, I will conclude my contribution.

 Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (11:35): I rise to speak in relation to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, and in doing so I want to begin by actually addressing a number of the issues that have been canvassed by previous speakers and in particular issues which relate to putative support from within the sector for amendments being proposed by the coalition and which have been indicated to be part of the discussion and debate. I note that one of those amendments, in relation to time frames for report back, has in fact fallen off the list. It has fallen off the list for a couple of reasons: one, because despite what Ms Bath said when she got to her feet earlier, the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) does not in fact have any record of supporting—and there is nothing on the record to suggest they do—an amendment proposing a pushback of the time frames. In addition to that, there is no basis for the amendment to proceed in the absence of stakeholder support along the lines that Ms Bath has incorrectly claimed. So we see that that amendment has dropped off the table. But we also see that this bill in fact has been supported by stakeholders, including the VFF, and that it is part of a comprehensive response to the issues of shortened availability within high periods of rainfall, of changes to water rights across various jurisdictions and of the lack of any sort of consolidated national framework for water policy. So yet again we see that there is conjecture and debate but a lack of accuracy and factual material around some of the catcalling that is happening in this chamber around the bill.

Now, Ms Lovell in her contribution referred to Minister Neville as needing to do more in a Labor-dominated ministerial committee framework for the portfolio responsibilities in water. What Ms Lovell did not actually refer to in her contribution is that we have got a coalition federal minister, Minister Littleproud, and we have got coalition governments in New South Wales and South Australia. Amidst that we have got a Labor minister who is not just holding her own at the table but in fact working to make sure that Victoria has absolutely a seat at the table and is absolutely in a position to be assertive and to be proactive around this issue as it affects Victorian irrigators, as it affects farming communities and primary producers and as it affects the regulatory framework, which in many cases across the ongoing debacle between New South Wales, South Australia and the commonwealth continues to play out to Victoria’s disadvantage. So they are really important things to note at the outset—that it is not the reality that the coalition would have us believe around a Labor-dominated framework for the purpose of ministerial council discussions. In addition to that, the way in which water rights operate is not something where an amendment proposed by the coalition was underpinned by VFF support, and as such we see that that amendment has magically disappeared from the proposals being advanced by the coalition in this place.

So with those opening remarks in relation to previous speakers, I want to turn to the substance of the bill and to some of the things that have underpinned what we do in countering issues around shortage and availability; in embracing the opportunities that technology, better research and data and better collaboration across different jurisdictions afford us; and in making sure that we can engage in practices that promote better efficiency and reduce waste and loss through evaporation—open channels, for example, are a particularly important part of that discussion; and also in making sure that our irrigation districts are in the best place they possibly can be, whilst also understanding the impact of what long-term, large-scale environmental change means for the entire state.

So in Gippsland I note that despite the fact that we have had a lot of rain in certain parts of the state in recent times, we are staring down the barrel of three failed seasons in Central and East Gippsland. It has had a devastating impact on primary producers and on communities, which rely upon people being able to work and produce family income and other income to spend locally and to keep a good churn of economic growth in those areas. We have seen that the knock-on effect has been horrific. One of the things that this particular bill does is to make sure that we are progressing a number of the actions set out in the Water for Victoria strategic plan, which amongst other things involves yearly assessments over a 15-year period to better understand the impact of what is happening around changes to the way in which our waterways are being filled or depleted; to understand the impact of changes as they relate to recreational and social use; to make sure that we have a better incorporation of traditional owners’ and First Nations’ priorities, knowledge, wisdom and understanding in the way in which waterways are managed; and to also ensure that we have appropriate measures around water resources, assessment and sustainable water strategies for the purpose of long-term planning.

This is something that should in fact go well beyond an electoral cycle, which should go well beyond any forward estimates process or a period of budgetary consideration. This is an issue which needs to be a medium to long-term proposition and needs to understand the ebbs and flows, if you will excuse the pun, of what occurs when we see changes to salinity, of what occurs when we see change in waterways and of what occurs when we see changes in other jurisdictions around the sale, pricing and regulation of water rights. We have seen that this is an issue mired in controversy. We only have to look at the sale of water rights which has beset the commonwealth government to understand that this is an area fraught with politics, often murky as the actual water that it purports to regulate, to the extent that that water exists and is not floodwater, which in fact is not in existence until it is—which is a one-in-10-year event, if that—and in fact that we need a better understanding of the timing of long-term water assessment, in particular for northern Victoria, and the way in which that overlays with the commonwealth review of the basin plan.

So there is a lot going on in this particular bill, which is about building on the primary purpose of Water for Victoria, having a review of a sustainable water strategy and making sure that community consultation is at the heart of that work as it goes forward. This means that we need to understand the impact of water availability and supply in our cities, our regional centres and also our communities further afield, particularly as our population grows. We know that we are anticipating an additional 4 million people to be born here or to move to Victoria between now and 2050; we cracked the 5 million mark some time last year. We know that initiatives such as large-scale water availability and the orders being placed through the desalination plant have made a fundamental difference to availability for domestic settings as well as to linking up the water grid to make sure that we can expand that into areas, including Gippsland, through the connection of the grid to the Korumburra project, which was a $30 million investment, to make sure that this quick-fill, quick-drain area of South Gippsland which relies upon ready available water, particularly for dairy, is not jeopardised.

So we now see that through actions taken by the Andrews government since first being elected in 2014 we have townships like Korumburra, Loch, Poowong and Nyora now being linked up to the grid. We also see that there are plans afoot to make sure that Cape Paterson, Inverloch and Wonthaggi will then also be linked up to the grid through the Lance Creek pipeline. These are important parts of what we are doing to provide water security. But it is also important to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework in place to understand how things are changing over time and the extent to which we need to provide policy responses and a regulatory framework which addresses any anticipated or actual shortfall in availability of supply.

There have been a number of comments made by people on the opposite benches about the coalition’s bill and its proposal from 2014 around regulation, compliance and enforcement. It is important to note in responding to those comments that have been put on the record that this bill in fact increases the strength of compliance and enforcement mechanisms and it provides harsher penalties for certain infringements, and that in fact is also important to send a message about the value we place on this commodity and about the need for better in-community responsibility around the way in which water is appreciated, used and shared.

So within this matrix of different regulatory settings Water for Victoria has been in the process of modernising compliance and enforcement provisions within the Water Act 1989, and we have also seen that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released the Murray-Darling Basin Water Compliance Review. In late 2017 we saw that released around allegations of the significant theft of water. Other speakers have referred to this commodity’s value as being like gold and have referred to it as being the most important resource that we have and something which we cannot do without. These are all axiomatic observations. I would say in fact that water is more valuable than gold because you cannot actually make sure that stock can stay alive if you got a couple of ingots in your back shed.

What I would also say is that there is a strong commitment in Victoria for that compliance framework, which not just sends a message around deterrence but also makes very public cases for intransigence around water theft. We cannot afford for this to become something which is either swept under the rug or becomes lost in a mire of different jurisdictions that are unable or unwilling to deal with it as an issue perhaps for political reasons, perhaps for regulatory reasons or perhaps because of who is or may be at the centre of such allegations.

We do see in fact that a sustainable water system requires us also to have better mechanisms for the way in which meters are read and understood and for the use of technology and the way in which we use telemetry and irrigation systems that are automated. Again we see that open channel has previously been responsible for about 90 per cent of evaporation, which is extraordinary. When you look at changes to biodiversity and you look at the importance of making sure that we are using this resource smarter and making it go further, the changes to technology and the move away from open channel have been a very, very big part of that, but we also need to understand that biodiversity mechanisms are something we need to continue to evolve and consider. We are now seeing mapping that shows that primary production of various crops is changing dramatically as median temperatures change. We are seeing that it is now possible to farm certain crops in parts of the state which were never considered to be habitable or hospitable to certain fruit crops, for example, and to certain primary resources.

Again, this is about making sure that we have a measure of security, it is about making sure that large-scale misappropriation of water is kept in check and seen to be kept in check and it is also about making sure that we are increasing efficiency in the administration of the Water Act with those red-tape reduction initiatives and housekeeping amendments, which a number of other speakers have also referred to in their contributions. So making sure that we have improved processes for declaring serviced properties, the way in which districts are declared, regulating declared and recreational areas, providing exemptions for seeking approval to dispose of matters into aquifers by means of a bore and removing a barrier to Melbourne Water being able to prepare plans for special water supply protection areas that can influence the planning schemes for land in its water supply catchments are also part of this particular set of reforms proposed by the bill. Making sure that we are also simplifying processes for making changes to irrigation districts—tariffs will only be able to be imposed in relation to serviced properties—is again an important component of this work.

Salinity has been touched on—no, not touched on. Salinity was at the heart of the contribution by Mr Gepp, who has also spoken at length, as has Ms Lovell, in relation to the water supply and the challenges that are faced in northern Victoria. Again this is something which the bill actively contemplates. It is one of the reasons why we do see large-scale support for this bill and what it achieves not just in the regulatory sense but also on the ground—what it means for those annual reviews and what it means for those understanding the collection and the importance of data over time to understand trends not just in relation to the way in which water arrives, sits, moves and might be used but also in relation to changes to total volume over time.

We are in a period of time where the way in which water is understood and managed as a resource is at last catching up with what many people across our community see as an invaluable thing that must be treasured and protected wherever possible. Balancing that against the competing priorities of primary producers, of communities who need and deserve access to so safe, clean water and of our major towns, cities and regional centres as our population explodes continues to be a priority which this bill contemplates. The work goes on, but in closing I do, in commending this bill, want to acknowledge the fierce, articulate, strenuous and tenacious efforts of our minister, Lisa Neville, in advocating for better water rights and better understanding of this resource for Victorians at a national level. I commend this bill to the house.

 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:51): I will be brief. Water is an essential resource for everyone, but those in the regions feel its absence far more. In the city less water means a few extra dollars on the shopping bill and sweeping the driveway instead of hosing it down. In the regions less water means family farms go out of business, dairy herds are sold for slaughter and paddocks become dust bowls. Between taxes, red tape and drought, belts are tight enough as it is. More than ever regional Victorians need water.

Unfortunately this government remains focused on Melbourne. They prove this every time they remind us of their commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin plan—a plan that sells out Victorian irrigators. This bill allows the government to pause the current review of Victoria’s water resources and to delay it until the conclusion of the Murray-Darling Basin plan in 2026. This is suspect at best. A review would let us know what the Murray-Darling Basin plan is doing to Victoria’s water resources. Ask yourself: why would the government want to stall such a review? I call on the government right now to pull out of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and conduct its own review.

The rest of the bill is a mixed bag. Increased penalties for water theft are warranted, but the increases in this bill are severe. I do not want Victoria to become a police state, and decade-long prison sentences for non-violent offenders are the way to get there. Given that the compliance review found very few Victorian farmers did the wrong thing it is just bizarre to be jacking up the penalties by up to 60 times the existing ones. If the government were serious about water theft, they would stop taking water from the farmers and sending it to South Australia. The bill also recognises Aboriginal values and recreational water use. While I would have preferred the bill to recognise all cultural values, the further consideration of these values is a good thing.

We reject the expansion of evidentiary presumptions. The Liberal Democrats believe that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. We reject racial discrimination under the law. Under this legislation racial discrimination is not only permitted but mandated. We reject the references to ‘traditional ecological knowledge’. Something is either knowledge or it is not. We are hesitant to support the changes to the way salinity mitigation charges are issued. Expanding control over levying fees is the same as granting new taxation powers, and the Liberal Democrats will never vote for increases in taxes. On the sum of these concerns, the Liberal Democrats will not support this bill.

 Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) (11:54): I rise to speak to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The bill seeks to amend the Water Act 1989 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. The main purpose of these amendments is to support several actions in the government’s strategic plan for Victoria’s water resources, Water for Victoria. Water for Victoria aims to maximise the benefits provided for Victorian communities, the environment, agriculture and the economy from the state’s water resources. Importantly the bill provides for the recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in the management and planning of waterways and catchments. It also recognises greater acknowledgement of the social and recreational uses and values of waterways for communities.

Additionally the bill aligns the two frameworks for the minister’s long-term water resource assessments and sustainable water strategies. This will enable the minister to prepare or review a sustainable water strategy to determine what actions to take if a long-term assessment identifies any issues regarding water availability. It is of particular importance where there has been a deterioration in waterway health or a decline in the amount of water that has fallen disproportionately on the environmental water reserve or water for consumption purposes. So the bill provides for resetting the date for the minister to commence the long-term—15-yearly—assessment of water resources in northern Victoria from 2018 to 2025 and having the 18-month assessment coincide with the commonwealth’s review of the Murray-Darling Basin plan in 2026.

The bill also reduces red tape for the administration of the Water Act by making it easier for the minister to declare and vary service districts for water corporations. It clarifies the minister’s existing responsibility to undertake salinity mitigation works and measures to comply with schedule C, ‘Basin salinity management’, of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. In addition it provides a legislative framework to underpin the salinity mitigation program. This is a crucial component of the bill because it strengthens the compliance and enforcement provisions, particularly in relation to the misappropriation of water and other principal offences that are critical to protecting the environment.

Indigenous people’s rights are enshrined in the bill and, together with the implementation of the government’s commitment in Water for Victoria to modernise and strengthen compliance and enforcement provisions, will ultimately lead to the protection of our precious water resources. This is a good bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

The PRESIDENT: Before we get to question time, I welcome in the gallery a delegation from the Philippine Center for Young Leaders in Governance, who are doing a study trip this week. It is great to have you here.

Since this morning it has come to my attention that the Assistant Clerk—Procedure had a birthday a couple of days ago.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: It never ends when we start this.

I remind members who are interested that there is a reception in the Federation Room for the successful all-Australian Indigenous basketball teams at lunchtime.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.