Thursday, 15 August 2019

 Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:08): Thank you for the concern shown by the Council before when I had my little moment. I really genuinely appreciate that. It is one of the highlights of coming to Parliament so far, but we are all good.

Talking about water, all things water, it is obviously critical to life and survival, and we acknowledge that even as human beings are we not 70 per cent water? So obviously we really need to value and honour that precious, precious resource. That is really what this bill is about: it is affirming just how critical water is and honouring that space for all of us for now and for sustainability into the future.

There were a few things that I wanted to just get some clarification on, so I am going to go into some of those issues. I know that a lot has been discussed already, and I think it is important at each point in these discussions, to show that we are actually listening to each other et cetera, that we clarify and refer to those points that have been made. There were some interesting points made today. I do not know if I fully comprehended some of the points and intentions behind them, so I just wanted to get some clarification on them as well.

Ms Bath seemed to indicate that the opposition would move an amendment on the moving of the long-term water resource assessment until 2025. What is more, she claimed that the Victorian Farmers Federation supported that. We would actually like a clarification, if that is actually what she said and that is what she meant. It is an interesting statement, and we are seeking some clarification on that. So I will just put it out there that we are seeking some clarification on that statement made a little earlier.

There were also some interesting statements about Minister Neville and questioning how she leads in the ministerial council. So let us look at that. Let us examine that. Under her leadership socio-economic criteria was agreed to by all other states. These criteria will ensure any further recovery projects have positive impacts for the community. There does not seem to be any caveats there. I think that is a pretty strong statement, and I think that reflects very well on Minister Neville. I think there were inferences that maybe she should get bigger muscles and be a little stronger, but in my view that statement is unequivocal. I think that is something that we should all be able to rely on, and I commend Minister Neville for taking such a strong stand and getting the agreement of all other states on that issue. That is certainly going to be very important for the protection of water and for sustainability into the future.

Now, looking at water generally in the bigger picture, we are very much on track to meet targets on environmental water recovery, and this is already having beneficial effects for the local community, I am pleased to say. And really, fundamentally, when you are talking about water it is an issue of balance, isn’t it? Because there are a lot of competing interests it is very difficult, I know, for governments alike to balance—and I am going to emphasise that word balancing—all those different interests, respecting how reliant communities and farmers and the like are on that. So when we are looking at that picture of balance, who are we talking about? We are talking about farmers, we are talking about environmental outcomes and we are talking about rural communities in Victoria, specifically within this context.

And it is sad, actually, because I know sometimes it is said that in the city we do not think about people in the rural communities—we only think about ourselves. But actually I have to say it is the opposite, because as somebody who lives in the city I am very mindful of the impacts, the devastating impacts, of climate change, particularly on farmers. They are the people who feel the brunt of climate change more than ever before. When we are pumping about—pumping out, sorry. Pumping about—I do not know what that was. I think I am getting a bit obsessed with muscles here, aren’t I, and gym work. I have got to get out of that. I do not even do the gym. Okay, so we will just get that out of here.

When we are thinking about our farmers, I am very aware that with what we do every day when we are driving a car and using petrol and pumping out CO₂ et cetera, guess who cops the brunt of it? Our farmers. So just because somebody lives in the city does not mean that they do not care about people in rural communities, and that is why there has been so much care and consideration put into this water bill to factor in those devastating impacts that transcend cities and very much influence the outcome for farmers, particularly in times of drought or in times of flood. We know from our national anthem that Australia has always had a harsh climate, but we also know unfortunately that as a result of human greed and ignorance over time we are impacting upon our climate—and I talk collectively across the globe; I am not talking about any particular individual—on our beautiful environment and on our beautiful planet. So that is why there is so much emphasis and why there is such a need for this water bill. And it has been over a decade, and it is now absolutely happening at the right time with proper consultation.

Looking at water generally and the bigger picture of where we are at, we have the desalination plant. We have not used it to full capacity—this year 125 gigalitres, but capacity is 150 gigalitres. So just when people are thinking about what sort of capacity and stores we have in terms of that particular facility, I just wanted to get that on the record so it is really clear, because I understand that when you are thinking about water there are so many different sources—and how it is collected and how it is managed—and it is really, really critical and fundamental to the survival of all human beings.

We are also pursuing water savings and efficiency, including Target 155, which those opposite opposed. So you have got to look at both sides of this equation. We are doing our bit. We are very much investing in water supply for the future, balancing all the various needs that are so very difficult but must be done. There are difficult decisions that have to be made, but they have to be made. That is why you are in government. That is why you are accountable and that is why you must take responsibility for these things, and that is exactly what this water bill is all about.

We have established integrated water forums to progress recycling and stormwater harvesting, and I am really pleased about that as well because obviously water goes up, water comes down, and in essence all water is actually recycled in one way or another, but human intervention can actually enhance that process. I am very proud that our government is part of that story, because we cannot just rely on the old ways of managing water that we would have had when originally we set up the various pipes and so forth—you can tell I am not a plumber; I have no idea about water structure et cetera—and when the more conventional, modern-day piping et cetera was set up. We have had to learn a lot, haven’t we, in terms of watching how the climate is actually being pretty significantly impacted and how our water supplies are actually being challenged.

There was something before that really upset me as well, and I say genuinely upset me. At first when I heard it I had to question, ‘Did I hear it?’. I am going to paraphrase because I cannot remember the exact words, but I believe that Mr Quilty was saying that they were going to reject the bill, and a component of that was related to the fact that we are incorporating greater recognition and involvement of Aboriginal Victorians in the planning for and management of waterways and catchments. Now, they are not exactly the words he used, but that was the inference, I believe—not wanting Aboriginal traditional owners to be part of this story. As I say, I could not believe it when I first heard it, and I had to text one of the other members, because I was like, ‘Did he really say that? Is that actually what he thinks?’. On the one hand in the morning every day when we come into Parliament we acknowledge country, and we all do it collectively. And yet we are turning around here and flipping and saying, ‘Oh, no. No, no. We won’t acknowledge our traditional owners when we are looking at water management’. And do you know what? I think they have got street cred here, because let’s face it, our traditional owners have been around 60 000 years. You know what? I think we can learn a thing or two from them, because certainly in terms of the way water was managed traditionally, it was far better than under European settlement. I am not even using data or stats here. We all know that, and we have a lot to learn.

I do not want to get angry or yell or anything like that. I actually just feel really sad, because on the one hand in Victoria our government is taking real leadership and saying, ‘We’re moving to treaty’, but then you get this kind of messaging that really sends—not you, members opposite, but from Mr Quilty—a signal. It sends a message, because every time you undercut fundamental principles that are there to acknowledge and to venerate the wonderful contribution of our Aboriginal—our original—owners of this land to our environment, every time you send a little signal like that, you undo the many, many years of great work to get to this point. So of all the things that I have heard today that was the most disturbing, and I do not really know how to deal with it. I do not know how to comprehend how anyone could reject this bill on that premise.

If we look at what we are trying to do here, the leadership our government is taking on this issue, the bill will require 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 consultation with traditional owner groups for the preparation of management plans and strategies for waterways and catchments. What is wrong with that? And what will it say about us if we are denying them a voice in this story when they have so much to share with us?

The bill will also oblige the water corporations, the catchment management authorities and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, when carrying out their functions under the Water Act 1989, to consider opportunities to provide for Aboriginal cultural values of water and waterways. Personally I feel deprived that we did not have that when I was growing up as a child. I think my experiences could have been enriched in terms of my relationship with the land and with our waterways if this had been incorporated back then. It was not, and we cannot go back in time, but I am really happy that our government is doing this now, because it is absolutely the right thing to do, and the sad thing about what Mr Quilty said is that he is actually even denying himself—and I do not want to speak for him—that joy and that enrichment of being part of this process and actually developing a deeper and more profound connection to the land and the country we all love. I know we all love it. I know that is one area where we can actually be bipartisan. We all love our country, but I do not see why excluding or not having our traditional owners as part of this story is going to be to the betterment of anyone.

What I would say is that I hope very much that Mr Quilty, or the Liberal Democrats if it is a collective position on this issue, will actually reflect on what is a very harsh and judgemental—I could use stronger words—position on this particular bill, and if this is the reason or a big part of the reason they are rejecting it I would suggest strongly that they reflect on that and reflect on how it will represent them into the future. Because you know what? There is an inference there. I think we can all see it, and it is not a good one. I would like to think that as a nation we have moved beyond that. That is why I have to say today that that was the most disappointing part of what is actually a very thoughtful, well-considered and well-consulted bill—that somebody would take exception to the premise of honouring our traditional owners. I hope, as I say, that today there is a bit of reflection, a bit of forward thinking and a little bit of a 360-degree view on how that particular position might reflect on the individual or the Liberal Democrats as a collective. I would take a different pathway on this. I would honour that component and hopefully all components of the bill. I now commend the bill to the house.

 Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:23): In speaking to this water catchment bill I wish to speak about the water catchments of the western suburbs, and I will start by talking about the Maribyrnong River. The Maribyrnong River runs for 160 kilometres from its source on the slopes of Mount Macedon, and it actually goes through Keilor North, Keilor, Kealba, Sunshine North, Maribyrnong, Flemington, Footscray and Yarraville to Port Phillip Bay. The Maribyrnong catchment lies north-west of Melbourne. It covers 143 square kilometres and yields an average annual flow of 120 000 million litres. The Maribyrnong River also has two branches: Deep Creek and Jacksons Creek. Brimbank Park contains evidence of human occupation for 40 000 years by Aboriginal people. The Wurundjeri people always have had a deep connection to the land along the Maribyrnong River, and today there are still burial sites and scar trees that are currently managed in partnership with the local communities, councils and the government to keep the Aboriginal history alive.

The Maribyrnong River gets its name from Mirring-gnay-bir-nong, which translates as ‘I can hear a ringtail possum’. The Maribyrnong River was originally called the Saltwater River because salt water from Hobsons Bay penetrates the river for a considerable distance. The skeletons of sharks and dolphins are found under Maribyrnong Park, where oysters and other marine shells are actually found right up until Steele Creek enters the Maribyrnong River. Once the tides of Hobsons Bay influenced the Maribyrnong River as far as Braybrook and Avondale Heights, where it changes into fresh water.

Before the arrival of European explorers and settlement, the area around Footscray was utilised by the Marin Bulluk clan of the Wurundjeri tribe for more than 40 000 years. The Maribyrnong was actually of great importance to the traditional people and was used for food and medicine. It was their drinking water. They travelled down the saltwater part on canoes. There were edible plants that grew on the river flats, and there was big game. They are still there today, locked into the Maribyrnong defence force site, because it has been a fenced-off area for a very long time. There are currently grey kangaroos and rock wallabies there. I myself have taken my children down to Cranwell Park in Braybrook, and I have seen echidnas in Braybrook, so the Maribyrnong River is still thriving.

Why I am speaking about the Maribyrnong River is because I do not see in any of the information that I have read from Melbourne Water or the like talk about some of the problems that the Maribyrnong River currently faces. One of them is the crown-of-thorns starfish. These crown-of-thorns starfish are an animal that naturally eats reefs, and they are naturally seen in the Indo-Pacific region, including the Great Barrier Reef. They are coral-eating starfish that have no predators in the Maribyrnong River. They are arriving in Victoria on the hulls of container ships, and they make their way into the Maribyrnong River. You just need to go for a walk and you see them everywhere. I have great concern about this because I do not see anywhere a big chunk of money to fix this problem. I have heard that the federal government and apparently the Prime Minister talk about these crown-of-thorns starfish, but he talks about them in terms of the Great Barrier Reef. He fails to see the importance of looking after my Maribyrnong River in the west.

We obviously have a desalination plant, and I have heard from my community that over the years they have been disappointed at the amount of money that was spent by previous governments on this desal plant. I have also heard from my community their concerns that have been raised of late in and around the fires in West Footscray and the problems that occurred at Stony Creek. Stony Creek is another creek that runs along Yarraville, goes through the Yarraville area and through Sunshine and goes all the way into Brimbank and Brimbank Park. The Brimbank council has taken the initiative, and they currently have a project located on Melbourne Water land that has brought together all levels of government along with private enterprise to rehabilitate a 1.2-kilometre section of the upper Stony Creek from the existing concrete drain back to its natural state.

Now, you have to understand with Stony Creek, a bit like Moonee Ponds Creek, that maybe only 50 or even 30 years ago these creeks were actually concreted and industry was allowed to pump dirty, contaminated water into those creeks. Governments over the last, say, 20 years have been removing that concrete, re-establishing the native grasses and trying to get the creek back to its native form for my community to be able to walk along and cycle along and enjoy. The Brimbank City Council realised that the realisation of their project would create a natural cool zone for the community in times of heatwave and a refuge for some of Melbourne’s most vulnerable communities, who disproportionately feel the impact of climate change and are particularly vulnerable to heat.

There are seven project partners when it comes to the Upper Stony Creek rehabilitation project, including the federal government and the Victorian government. They have invested a combination of $11 million to transform the site into a vibrant and natural community precinct. However, as happens with many projects in Brimbank and the western suburbs, shortly after breaking ground it was discovered that the site was contaminated, and the project came to a standstill after funds had been exhausted due to the escalating remediation costs and the need to clean up the asbestos and contamination.

What once was a beacon of hope for the Brimbank community—a transformational project that was designed to be a first in the Southern Hemisphere—is fast becoming an issue of environmental justice for the west. All of the project partners and agencies have identified that they want to keep the project going, but more money is needed to cover the cost of completing the remediation works and finishing the job that was started. We need leadership from this government to finish that project for my community in the west. What is obviously needed is more money to remediate the site. They wish to complete the works—including the wetlands, a revegetation of the creek bed and walking paths—and deliver on the promise to create a natural cool zone for the local community in times of heatwave. So as you can hear, they have started the project and have not really got to completion at all due to finding contamination in this upper part of Stony Creek. So the community of Brimbank are wanting this Parliament to help rescue that project from incompletion.

I am also going to thank the government—as I always try to do—for recognising the City of Maribyrnong’s project looking after the Footscray part of the Maribyrnong River. They have, and I thank them again, put money towards making sure that there is a realisation of better amenities when the West Gate Tunnel Project goes through along the Maribyrnong River. The Maribyrnong River is a wonderful river, much loved by my community. It stretches from Footscray, as I have said earlier, all the way through Avondale Heights to Kealba and beyond, right up into the Macedon Ranges. The Maribyrnong River has in past times often been treated as the second-rate river of Melbourne, as priority has always gone to the Yarra. I, here today, refuse to allow that to continue to occur. The waterways of the west need urgent attention and deserve as much of this Parliament’s time as any other catchments and any other waterways in Victoria.

I also just briefly talked about the lower end of Stony Creek in Yarraville. Obviously with the West Footscray fires a huge amount of contamination occurred in Stony Creek. This Parliament, as an election promise, put $1 million towards it. At the time, during the federal election, Bill Shorten made a promise of around $3 million to $5 million to get more works done for that area, but I have not seen the Daniel Andrews government pick up the Bill Shorten Labor Party promise to continue what the Labor Party was hoping to achieve federally. If we do not have the money as a Parliament, we should be making sure our federal colleagues do their job and find that money for Stony Creek. So I urge the coalition to talk to their mates and get some money for the west.

So we come to the bill. As you can hear from the passion in my voice, the waterways of the west are very important. I understand that this bill is trying to help in many ways to recognise the Aboriginal community in my area, and the elders that I have spoken to in my area are pleased to see, finally, some Aboriginal recognition—recognition of their right to and their love of the waterways of the west. I only hope that this Parliament takes what I have said on board and has some meaningful conversations with my communities and those councils around looking for projects to improve the amenity and the waterways of my western suburbs—and northern suburbs, mind you, because there is Moonee Ponds Creek, and that goes way into the top end of the west and across the north and the north catchment.

I also understand that there has been previously a lot of money spent on flood mitigation for the Maribyrnong River because the Maribyrnong River is prone to floods. Only just recently has City West Water allowed the City of Maribyrnong to make any improvements around Footscray Park, due to always giving priority to the Melbourne Cup and Victorian racing rather than the needs of the Footscray community on the other side of the Maribyrnong River. I would hope in many ways that there is money to be found for these very important identified projects for my community and that the water catchment bill is just the start of the conversation. I especially hope that the Brimbank community, who are much deserving, do get money to actually continue the good work for the Upper Stony Creek project. I will leave it at that.

 Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:38): I rise today to make a contribution in regard to the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I have been listening to some of the contributions in the house today, and I note that some of the contributions have very ably gone at great length into detail about some of the fantastic aspects of this bill, particularly in regard to inclusion and ensuring that Aboriginal cultural rights in regard to water are respected and acknowledged. That is an important feature of this bill, but nonetheless there are many important features of this bill, and I might just touch on some of them which will signal to the Victorian community the seriousness with which the government treats ensuring that we protect our natural resources, such as water, and how important water and the need to protect it is to our communities.

One of the features of the bill is to make sure that compliance and enforcement have been strengthened and to make sure that there is a clear message about the need to comply with regulatory frameworks. I might just touch on, for example, some of the amendments in the bill to the compliance and enforcement provisions in the Water Act 1989. The commonwealth Water Act 2007 integrates management of water resources across the Murray-Darling Basin, including new limits on how much water can be taken from the basin’s surface and groundwater systems. It also establishes the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), which is charged with preparing a Murray-Darling Basin plan. Victoria’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the basin compliance review and meeting the basin plan requirements depends in part on the bill’s amendments to the Water Act 1989, so that is very important.

In terms of the recommendations of the MDBA compliance review, there are three that the bill will focus on implementing, and they are: one, to propose any legislative amendments necessary to ensure strong penalties and greater consistency between the Murray-Darling Basin states—New South Wales’s maximum penalty for intentional water theft is $1.1 million for individuals and $52.2 million for bodies corporate; two, to reduce the burden of evidence and simplify offences by way of strict liability; and, three, to have an appropriate range of penalties and sanctions.

The redrafted offences produce three levels of seriousness. First of all is the intentional commission of an offence; secondly, the reckless commission of an offence; and, third, strict liability, which is that the offender’s frame of mind is not relevant at the time. These three levels now make it clear which offence needs proof that the accused was reckless and which offence does not require any proof of the accused person’s frame of mind—so that goes to the last aspect of strict liability. Modern drafting style takes into account feedback from the courts who have had to interpret offence provisions and deal with them in the court system. Each offence needs to be clear on every element of proof, and any single offence provision should not include alternative options for what needs to be proved. The three levels of seriousness are also necessary to enable a proportionately different maximum penalty to apply at each level.

In terms of reckless liability, currently the elements of intent and recklessness are not written into the offence provisions but would have been implied by the courts and consequently would require the implementation of a High Court ruling. Therefore the whole-of-government criminal law policies require that offences with very high penalties must require proof of intent or recklessness. Another element of the aggravated offences that justifies the very high penalties is the need to prove the offence resulted in serious harm to land, works or water or significant economic loss of a person.

So some of the penalties are indeed being increased in this legislation. It is the view of government that indeed the penalties that existed were inadequate. In many cases the courts would fine a person only $1500 to $3000 for taking water—which is considerably less than the cost of buying water from the rural market at approximately $400 per megalitre—and profiting from a crop at the expense of the environment and other water users. In order to deter water theft we need to make sure it is not cheaper for farmers to steal water and then to pay a fine. In effect the cost of doing business should not operate like that. The penalties therefore are being increased because one of the recommendations of the basin compliance review is to ensure that there are stronger penalties that are also more consistent between the basin states.

While Victoria cannot legislate maximum fines precisely as high as New South Wales has, this bill will move Victoria’s maximum penalties towards greater consistency between the basin states, and it is a welcome move. In terms of the other states’ maximum penalties for taking water without authorisation, in New South Wales, for example, the maximum penalties for intentional water theft are $1.1 million for an individual and $5 million for a corporation. New South Wales increased its maximum fine from $2.2 million to $5 million in 2018. For water theft, enforced as a strict liability offence, in New South Wales there is now a $247 500 fine for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation. In Queensland the maximum fine for taking water without authorisation is $210 030. In South Australia the maximum fines are $35 000 for an individual and $70 000 for a corporation or a rising tariff of overuse fees of $260 per megalitre for the first 10 per cent taken in excess of the authorised amount, $780 per megalitre for between 11 per cent and 25 per cent, and it goes on. Holders of water rights in South Australia must balance their water accounts in June each year to ensure they are not penalised for overuse.

How will Victoria’s penalties under this bill compare with other basin states’ penalties? This bill will increase Victoria’s maximum penalties for water theft to approximately 10 per cent to 20 per cent of New South Wales penalties and approximately 50 per cent to 90 per cent of Queensland penalties for strict liability offences, and in Victoria it must also be proven that the offence resulted in serious harm to land, works or water or in significant economic loss for a person.

I hear you ask: how is the maximum penalty for strict liability offences changing? Well, I can tell you that the bill will remove the penalty of three to six months imprisonment from the strict liability offence regime. This is to enable the government to establish a penalty infringement notice scheme to enforce breaches of these penalties with on-the-spot fines. Setting up a PIN scheme is problematic if the offences have imprisonment against them. The bill increases the level of fines for strict liability offences, plus the evidentiary presumptions are being expanded, so enforcing strict liability offences will be more feasible. For example, the power to estimate how much water was taken will be broadened to apply to farmers who pump or divert directly from waterways and aquifers. This power can currently only be used for supply of urban water and for water delivered to rural customers in irrigation districts. There will be a new evidentiary presumption if a person is found guilty by a court of interfering with a meter. It may be used as a presumption that the person took water without authorisation.

We believe that under the strict liability offences the fines that are being set are not too high and in fact strike the right and correct balance. Under the level of offence for non-aggravated strict liability offences, which will most likely be the level used for enforcement, the maximum penalty will be only $38 000 for an individual or $190 000 for a company. These are only maximums, and courts usually impose fines of between a quarter and a third of these amounts for first offenders. Further, imprisonment will no longer be one of the possible penalties for this level of offence. In regard to the non-declared water systems, licences to take and use water cost approximately $1000 per megalitre, so a small 20-megalitre licence can cost around $20 000 and an average-sized licence of 700 megalitres can cost around $700 000. Buying temporary water off the market can vary greatly depending on the source of water—for example, between $100 and $500 per megalitre.

That is just a little bit of background in regard to the offences. I will finish talking about offences on this point for now. In regard to whether the maximum penalties for aggravated offences are commensurate with other offences, we believe that the penalties are not disproportionately high, because the offences with high penalties of 10 or five years imprisonment for an individual or for a corporation require proof that the accused committed the offence knowingly or recklessly respectively. They also require proof that the offence resulted in serious harm to land, works or water or in significant economic loss to a person. The new penalties will be commensurate with the offences of theft and obtaining property by deception under the Crimes Act 1958, for which the maximum penalty is also 10 years imprisonment or 1200 penalty units and for which there is no requirement to also prove the offence resulted in serious harm or significant economic loss.

Now, there is an important distinction to make between taking water, diverting water and using water. Under the regime, water is taken when it is pumped directly from a waterway, an irrigation channel or an aquifer. Water is diverted when, for example, a dam is built away from a river and the water is diverted from the river into the dam using a canal or a gravity-fed pipe. Water is used when, for example, a dam is built across a waterway to hold the water and the water then evaporates or seeps into the ground. In effect those offences and that additional information clarify the basis upon which these things can be taken into account by the courts. What can happen, for example, if a person is just trying to maintain or repair the meter on their land? Could they in fact be wrongly accused of taking water without authorisation? For example, meters used by a water corporation to measure water supplied, delivered, taken or used on land are the property of the water corporation or under the management and control of the water corporation. There is no reasonable reason for a landowner or occupier to in fact maintain or repair the meter.

If a person interferes with a meter, it is an offence of interfering with the meter under section 288 of the act, and the same types of laws apply to gas and electricity meters. In the case of someone accidentally damaging a meter, for example, the Water (Estimation, Supply and Sewerage) Regulations 2014 require an occupier of land to notify the relevant water corporation of the loss of or damage to an authority’s water meter within two business days after first becoming aware of the loss or damage. If they do this, there will be no reason for a water corporation to suspect the meter has been wrongfully put out of action. Also, under these water regulations, if requested by a land occupier, water corporations are required to test the accuracy of a meter and replace it if necessary.

You can see that some of those relevant provisions and arrangements have been put in place to strengthen and protect water as a natural resource but also to clarify penalty regimes and the arrangements under which somebody may in fact be charged with an offence or have to deal with an offence before the courts. I conclude my contribution there, and I commend this bill to the house.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (14:53): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this important legislation. I know that members all have a great interest in the management of our water resources, and indeed the debate has been quite wideranging. But I have a couple of matters that members have raised with me or with the minister and/or her office through the running of this bill that I will respond to by just making a few brief concluding remarks.

As members have observed, the actions in Water for Victoria support a healthy environment, a prosperous economy, growing agricultural production and of course thriving communities. This bill makes some really important changes to the underlying principles and thinking that guide how we manage our water resources. Many members have spoken during the debate about the importance of better inclusion of traditional owners and Aboriginal Victorians in planning for and managing our water resources, and we are very proud to be making that change through this legislation. This bill will embed in the Water Act 1989 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 enduring obligations to ensure that traditional owners and other Aboriginal Victorians have a seat at the table when plans and strategies are prepared for our water resources, waterways and catchments.

The bill also, importantly, embeds our government’s commitment to ensuring our lakes, rivers and other waterways are made available as much as possible for the community’s recreational enjoyment and benefit. I do get to see a lot of this firsthand in my boating and fishing portfolio responsibilities, and I have also seen this in my many years representing Western Victoria. When I was first elected to this place and visited the communities throughout Western Victoria as a new local member, we were many, many years into the millennium drought and the importance of recreational water use for communities was just palpable. Whether it was around synthetic sporting surfaces or a place where people could go for a splash, this was something people missed so very much. When, on occasion, recreational water could be made available through that particularly challenging period in the state’s water history, the relief in the community was palpable.

A recent piece of research from indeed that region, the Wimmera Southern Mallee: Socio-economic Value of Recreational and Environmental Water study, found that 24 waterways in the region provided $27.5 million in economic benefit and attracted more than 437 000 visitors in one year alone. So not only is being on the water exceptionally good for people’s wellbeing, for their mental health and for their ability to spend time with family and friends, it is also very important for the economy.

This bill gives longevity to these valuable policies and actions, and it does embed ongoing obligations for the water corporations, the catchment management authorities and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder to consider and incorporate recreational values in the way they manage water resources, waterways and catchments while of course still giving priority to their core obligations around the holders of water rights, environmental obligations and preserving the very high standards of safe drinking water that we mostly get to enjoy in Victoria almost all of the time in almost every community.

Compliance has been a hot topic in national water policy and debate in recent years. Members will recall in a 2017 Four Corners program a very concerning report around water misappropriation in the northern basin states. Our government and Minister Lisa Neville were very quick to call for action supporting a basin-wide review of compliance and agreeing to better monitoring and metering to ensure compliance with those rules. The compliance review by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority found that Victoria has a good record and culture of complying with water laws—which does not surprise me, but it is still pleasing to have that confirmed—and it made that observation in comparison to the experience of the northern basin states. But in line with the review, we certainly recognise that Victoria’s water laws can continue to improve, like lots of things. Where there is an opportunity to improve, we will take that opportunity.

The bill will delay the long-term assessment of water resources in northern Victoria until 2025. The reason is that—and I think this is perhaps one of the questions Mr Davis is keen to hear some further explanation on—the state’s program of works to meet the sustainable diversion limits imposed by the Murray-Darling Basin plan will not be completed until 2024. Simply this is just a practical measure to avoid people having to go through something twice when they can go through it once. The water, through those projects, is still being returned to the environment, and environmental works and measures are still being put in place to meet those targets. The long-term water resource assessment should take into account those actions under the basin plan, and the best time to do this is after the implementation of the plan. It is worth noting, I think, that Victoria has already recovered or identified 800 gigalitres for the commonwealth of environmental water and that with projects undertaken to date and those in the works we are on track to reach our target of 1075 gigalitres. We are, as we have been for some time, well ahead of the other basin states.

I think there was some conjecture in the debate in the other place about what was the best approach here, but, just to clarify for the comfort of the opposition, this is just a very commonsense, practical measure to make sure we are measuring the right thing at the right time rather than having that happen twice and having that happen prematurely.

There is an amendment that has been circulated in Mr Davis’s name, and it is very similar in form to one that was circulated in the other place during the last sitting week, which is around the long-term assessment and subsequent review—specifically, the consideration of commonwealth environmental water holdings. We do not believe that there is any need to specify individual entitlement holders; the assessment as proposed takes into account all water resources, listing different types of water rather than individual entitlement holders. So I can absolutely reassure the house that all environmental water will be considered. This amendment that is proposed the government will not be supporting. We just do not believe it is necessary for its intended purpose. The current wording in the bill will more than suffice. So it is a little without purpose, but I understand that the opposition are keen to proceed with that, so we will cross that bridge when we get into the committee stage.

There are some issues around red-tape reduction and the impact of that that Mr Quilty has been interested in in particular. I did not have the opportunity to hear his contribution to the debate, but I believe I understand the nature of his concerns. So what I would indicate to Mr Quilty and to the house is that of course the government is doing everything it can to reduce red tape, because red tape costs water consumers, and the government wants to minimise costs to householders in whatever way it can. So the bill replaces 15 pages, or 23 sections, of unnecessary provisions with three pages, or seven sections, of legislation. The process for determining rights will be the same as the process already used for metropolitan water and sewerage districts, and that has been used since 2012. I want to stress that no accrued rights of any landowners will be affected, because new section 122L will save all districts in existence immediately before the new provisions come into effect. New section 336 will also save all serviced property declarations in existence immediately before the new provisions come into effect. So I hope that has provided a level of comfort for Mr Quilty on that particular question.

Just briefly, many members made contributions during the debate. In no particular order, in response to Dr Cumming, we share her interest and concern about the importance of rivers in Melbourne’s west. We absolutely recognise the environmental, recreational and cultural values of the rivers. Waterways of the West is being supported. There is a ministerial advisory committee to ensure that the minister is engaging very directly and very clearly with people who have an interest in this. On the mighty Maribyrnong and Werribee rivers and Moonee Ponds Creek we know that there is more to do. I might just give a gratuitous shout-out to our good mates from the Essendon Anglers Club, because the last couple of times I have been on the Maribyrnong River I have been with them, and they are a dynamic and wonderful angling club—so hello, Essendon.

Mr Bourman referred to high flows and the impact on the Murray River and the Barmah Choke, and in response to that I would indicate that the government has announced all new licence applications in the lower Murray will be assessed by the minister against criteria including impacts on the environment and deliverability to irrigators.

Dr Ratnam wanted to make sure that we were thinking about climate change in how we manage our water resources—we are, just for the avoidance of any doubt about that. She wanted us to do a whole lot of things that we are already doing. On the question of Aboriginal water I think it is important, just in response to Dr Ratnam, to make the point that it is not just about legislating; there is also $10 million there to support greater capability in Aboriginal water management—so working with traditional owners on projects and on economic development opportunities. I think we all have a lot to learn from traditional owners about how we collectively manage our waterways.

I would also just respond to Dr Ratnam by correcting the record. We have not had major fish kills in Victoria; that was in New South Wales. We did indeed offer to assist them with their clean-up. It was a very, very unfortunate event, but we monitor these things very, very closely in terms of our fish populations. Our water corporations are leading in mitigating and adapting to climate change. They are working towards net zero emissions, and they are building water-saving projects and drought-resilient infrastructure and indeed drought-resilient communities across the state.

I hope I have acquitted a few of the things that people had questions about, but we will no doubt go into committee and talk in a little bit more detail about Mr Davis’s amendments. If members have any other questions on the bill, I am happy to assist them. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:07): I move:

That the Water and Catchment Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 be referred to the Environment and Planning Committee for inquiry, consideration and report by Tuesday, 26 November 2019.

I will be very brief, particularly because I did not know that I was allowed to speak to this. I have been contacted by a constituent. I imagine I am not the only person here who has been contacted. There have been frequent messages over the last few weeks, and the minister touched on that in her closing speech. The constituent is concerned that they have residual or accrued rights that will be extinguished by this bill and the minister will be getting new powers. I understand that the minister assures us that that is not the case, but I made a commitment that I would try to send this to committee for further consultation.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (15:08): The government will oppose this referral to a committee. Really, irrespective of the argument for that process, I have had about 45 seconds to determine the government’s position on this. This matter was not flagged with us beforehand. I encourage the member when seeking to establish parliamentary committee inquiries into matters to engage with us a little earlier, and then we might be in a different position to be able to consider things. But this is very short notice and we are pretty keen to get this legislation passed to be able to implement the changes that have been worked on for some time. I think if you have a constituent who has a particular concern or question about these matters, then there are other ways that we can go about that to provide whatever satisfaction or further information any individual might seek.

 Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:09): Can I just indicate that like the minister we have only learned of this just now, and it is difficult in that circumstance to take a considered and thoughtful position. I think some of the issues that the member is referring to are legitimate matters that we are seeking some assurance on. Steph Ryan, the shadow minister, has provided some legal views to me about that, and I understand that she has also provided some of that material to the minister. We will be seeking some clarification in committee on exactly those matters. So my point is to agree with you, Mr Quilty, in terms of the significance of the points that you are raising, and we have a particular process that we are pursuing here. I am hopeful that the minister will be able to provide some of those answers in committee.

There is a longstanding issue where water rights are changed, both in the city and in the country. There is an economic impact and a social impact, part of which I referred to in my contribution. I think the community is very cautious about pre-emptory activities of government—potentially capricious activities by governments—that affect not only the value of the property but the usability of it and the quality of people’s lifestyles. So these are legitimate questions to pursue, and I will certainly pursue some of them in committee. As I understand it, the minister has been provided with some material for her to comment on.

Motion negatived.

Committed.

Clause 1 (15:12)

Mr DAVIS: As I alluded to just a moment ago, there have been discussions between the opposition and the government on this particular issue. Some of the material that Steph Ryan, our shadow in this area, has provided to me and indeed provided to the minister point to matters around provisions of this act—part 6A, various parts of section 122 and some of the issues around that. I might just summarise some of the questions that were raised. In summary, the minister should at a minimum be required to give notice of a proposed determination to vary or abolish a district in accordance with the same requirements set out in section 122P of the principal act, which relate to a proposal by an authority under section 122M of the act to establish a new water district or sewerage district or extend a water district, a sewerage district, a waterway management district or an irrigation district.

The specific questions that were put were: can you confirm a variation or abolition of part 6A could mean that it probably is no longer serviced under section 144? Why has the government dispensed with the obligation to publish a notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the area concerned before moving to vary or abolish? Did the government obtain any advice on whether changes to these provisions would impact on property values? What compensation will be available to property owners in the event a minister decides to abolish or vary water or sewerage districts resulting in an impact on property rights? Finally, Minister, you would be aware of the concern of residents from Diamond Creek who believe these amendments give the minister unbridled power to vary or abolish water supply or sewerage districts. What guarantee can you provide that this provision does not unjustifiably or inequitably remove their rights?

Ms PULFORD: I can just illustrate this by listing the sections that exist now and the sections that will replace them. But in doing so, the effect of all of this is no change, so I want to provide that reassurance. The existing powers to vary a district are in sections 122GAB, 122M, 122S, 122Y and 122Z. They will be replaced with a new section 122I. The existing powers to abolish a district are in sections 122GAB, 122Y and 122Z. They will be replaced with section 122I. So the bill saves all existing districts, as I indicated in my summing-up comments, in a new section—that is, section 122L.

Mr DAVIS: So I now move to a different set of questions, on clause 1 quite specifically. I want quite a direct and quick response; I am not looking to drag this out. You have talked about the rationale in delaying the initiation of the long-term water resource assessment by seven years. You have tried to explain it is only to do it once, not twice. I would have thought it was also—

Ms PULFORD: At the right time.

Mr DAVIS: Yes, rather than repeated. I would have thought it is possible to do much of that work earlier and in a sense top it up or revisit the work in some—

Ms PULFORD: Refresh it.

Mr DAVIS: Refresh it is a nice way—spruce it up.

Ms PULFORD: So there are a couple of reasons. As you point out, there is one which is about inconvenience for people who would have to be involved in something twice rather than once. But the main reason is that while the savings are being made water is still moving as part of the arrangements that are in place through the Murray-Darling Basin plan. It is literally a fluid situation, so it just makes sense to wait until that work is concluded before making those assessments.

Mr DAVIS: I understand the minister’s point, but I still think that there is an aspect where the state may be better armed and better positioned with respect to the national arrangements to have more data and more assessment earlier.

Ms PULFORD: I concur; it is a very reasonable question. I am advised that as part of the Murray-Darling Basin plan there is constant monitoring, there are yearly reports and that information is shared with the commonwealth and the other basin states. So it is not like we will be starting from scratch. That work is ongoing. That particular assessment will occur when the works are completed and the savings have been found and there is then, I guess, a stable point to measure.

Mr DAVIS: On a separate question, in regard to the changes affecting salinity impact charges, was a regulatory impact statement (RIS) conducted—because my understanding is it was not—and if not, why not?

Ms PULFORD: Because the bill does not change the way the salinity management scheme works, it does not alter the charges. It supports Victoria’s long-held policy of requiring beneficiaries to pay for any environmental and third-party impacts resulting from their activities. I understand that the opposition have called for a regulatory impact statement to be produced, but the bill contains no proposed changes to the level of the fees or to who pays them. The salinity impact zones and program of works in the Mallee have enabled over 39 000 hectares of new irrigation development in low-salinity areas while protecting the Murray River and downstream water users. There has been a great commitment by everyone involved to deliver that outcome. The short answer to your question about why there was not a regulatory impact statement is because there are no changes to the fees.

Mr DAVIS: On a separate manner, why were the amendments regarding compliance not included in the 2017 iteration of this bill?

Ms PULFORD: Much of this bill, as Mr Davis indicates, was prepared some years ago. What happened in 2017, as I indicated in my concluding remarks in the second-reading debate, was that there was concern about compliance and misappropriation in other states, which was the subject of that Four Corners report in 2017. So it was in response to that that our government called for a review. The review found that there was a really good record of compliance in Victoria but that there were some opportunities that existed to improve. There was information that came to light as a result of that review—some I think modest opportunities for improvement. So given the legislation was prepared and well advanced, we took the opportunity to make those improvements at the earliest opportunity. But, yes, that information was not known to us in 2017 because the review had not occurred.

Mr DAVIS: I thank the minister for that response. By way of not a further question on this but just by way of comment, I would say that those compliance amendments are quite similar to those posed in the 2014 bill that the former National-Liberals had to proceed with. It would have been worthwhile to have them in that first version of the bill. But leaving that aside, I just make that as a comment on the way through.

Ms PULFORD: My memory is not that good, Mr Davis.

Mr DAVIS: And nor is mine, but I am provided with notes, where those who spend their life examining water bills have drawn that distinction. I just make that point and have no further points to make on clause 1.

Mr QUILTY: Returning to ground we have already ploughed a couple of times now, and I accept that you have spoken on this already, but I will just go through this. We would like confirmation that the bill does not directly grant the minister any new powers that can extinguish any accrued rights or entitlements that currently exist; diminish any claims to compensation for the removal from any districts and associated rights or entitlements; diminish any claims to compensation for the removal from being a serviced property; diminish any claims to compensation for removal from any water, sewer, drainage or irrigation districts; alter the continued duties, functions and responsibilities that Melbourne Water Corporation inherited from the Plenty-Yarrambat Waterworks Trust and urban district; or diminish any appeal rights or notification rights. Can the minister assure us that the bill does not do any of those things above in relation to the properties at 175–199 and 201–219 Ironbark Road, Diamond Creek, and the adjoining property at 40–60 Pioneer Road, Yarrambat?

Ms PULFORD: I can absolutely provide that assurance in the general. So that is something that is an assurance I can provide to all landowners in Victoria, as I indicated in the summing-up and in response to Mr Davis’s first question. I will resist the temptation or perhaps decline your invitation to comment on a specific property or properties. I am not sure that that is appropriate, and there are perhaps other ways to seek that assurance about a specific property. But in general and with a statewide application I can absolutely give you that assurance.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (15:27)

Mr DAVIS: I move:

1.   Clause 5, page 8, after line 24 insert—

‘(11) In section 3(1) of the Principal Act insert the following definition—

“Commonwealth environmental water holdings has the same meaning as in the Water Act 2007 of the Commonwealth.”.’.

As I have made clear, this makes amendments to ensure that the definition of environmental water and environmental water reserve in the Water Act 1989 includes environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. I accept the government’s assertion, which was made in good faith, that there is no negative impact in not making this change, but I would put to the minister that this in a sense is a belt-and-braces approach. Let us be quite clear about it. If there is no detriment to making this super clear, well, let us make it super clear. In that sense I seek the support of the chamber for my amendment 1, which is to clause 5, which as I understand it is regarded as a test for all of the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition.

Ms PULFORD: The government will be opposing this amendment. I think Mr Davis and I agree that it is minor in nature. We think that it is clearer without rather than in the bill in the language that Mr Davis has proposed. So we will be opposing it for the reasons that I outlined earlier.

Committee divided on amendment:

Clause 14 (15:36)

Mr DAVIS: On clause 14, Minister, I just wonder whether you can explain the rationale of the date proposed in the substitute section 22K(a)(i) over the current date in the Water Act.

Ms PULFORD: Sorry, Mr Davis, can you repeat that?

Mr DAVIS: It is 22K(a)(i), 31 January 2025. It is a repeat of the earlier question in a sense.

Ms PULFORD: This is one of those ‘You learn something new every day’ kind of moments. The language there is based on the recommendation from parliamentary counsel about providing absolute certainty about the day on which one set of arrangements stops and the other starts.

Mr DAVIS: Thank you. The further question I have relates to the next bit of this section 22K. Can you explain when the long-term water resource assessments for other Victorian water resources were supposed to be under the Water Act 1989 and explain why they have been delayed to 2021?

Ms PULFORD: There is only one other, and that is the southern long-term water assessment. There is nothing in this bill that changes the timing of assessments. The first 15-year assessment is underway, and that date represents the point at which the second period of assessment commences. They are 15-year periods.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (15:41)

Mr DAVIS: Just on clause 15, ‘Preparation of draft long-term water resources assessment’, the question I have is: can you explain how notice will be provided to affected irrigators and irrigator groups?

Ms PULFORD: The group that the question relates to represents half of Victoria, so this is usually done through representative organisations like the Victorian Farmers Federation. Also there are public notices, and there is a website that provides this information as well, But representative organisations—

Mr DAVIS: Are there postal comms as well?

Ms PULFORD: No, not individual letters to half the state but through representative organisations.

Mr DAVIS: Or in their rates notices or something?

Ms PULFORD: Can I take that question on notice?

Mr DAVIS: Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (15:43)

Mr DAVIS: On clause 16, which is ‘Consideration and publication of long-term water resources assessment’, my question is: what is the rationale for increasing the period in section 22O(3) from 12 months to 18 months?

Ms PULFORD: With your forbearance, Deputy President, if we could jump back to the last question, I have the answer to that. We do not provide written notice to individuals, but the water corporations all have customer consultative committees. So in addition to representative groups, public notices and the website, there are those customer consultative committees as well.

In response to the more recent question on clause 16, 15 years ago when these arrangements were put in place 12 months was thought to be an adequate period of time to properly consult and consider these matters. Over the last 15 years the level of community interest and the complexity around these issues have become greater than was perhaps anticipated 15 years ago, and so to do a thorough job of this takes a little longer than everybody thought it would 15 years ago.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (15:46)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 17 is ‘Review following long-term water resources assessment’, and it deals with a number of points here. I guess the question for us is: can you explain the rationale for the groups ‘economic and environmental matters’, ‘Aboriginal cultural values and uses of waterways’, and ‘social and recreational matters’? Is there any grouping of hierarchy in that that is operating, and why the pairing in this matter?

Ms PULFORD: These are things for the minister to have regard to, and I think the second-reading speech and the comments that I made in concluding the debate really respond to this—the responsibilities of our water authorities to consider these additional responsibilities as well as the things that they have always done.

Mr DAVIS: Yes, the second-reading speech—Minister, thank you for that—is relevant of course, but that does not really get to the question of why this pairing in this way.

Ms PULFORD: I am wondering if Mr Davis could try and ask the question again because I am not sure exactly what he is after from me here.

Mr DAVIS: You have got these things in three duos, if I can put it that way. Is there some significance in the way that they are grouped? Is there some logic in that? Why are recreational matters not related to uses of waterways? Why are environmental matters not also, and so forth? It seems to me there is a choice of groupings here. Is there some rationale to that, or did it just fall out of the thesaurus?

Ms PULFORD: The drafters have been giving consideration to the readers. That is a big part of it. The three values—and members will all be familiar with the notion of the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social—were there already, and what we have added is ‘Aboriginal cultural values and uses’, as many members have reflected on during the second reading. To ‘social’ we have added ‘recreational’.

Mr DAVIS: And there is no hierarchy?

Ms PULFORD: No.

Clause agreed to; clauses 18 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (15:50)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 27 is ‘Renewal of licence’, and I just want to ask one very simple question: who makes the decision on an application for renewal under proposed section 58(7)?

Ms PULFORD: The water corporation acting as the delegate of the minister.

Clause agreed to; clauses 28 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 (15:51)

Mr DAVIS: This clause 37 inserts new section 75A, and my first question is: does new section 75A apply retrospectively to works carried out prior to the commencement of this bill?

Ms PULFORD: No.

Mr DAVIS: I have another question on the same section. Does the new section apply to levee banks?

Ms PULFORD: I am advised that it does if they do not have a permit.

Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. Also, for the purpose of the new section 75A, ‘regulated activity’ includes the erosion or damaging of the surrounds of a waterway. Does this place an additional obligation on landholders to prevent natural erosion of the levee banks and irrigation infrastructure?

Ms PULFORD: No, it does not.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38 (15:53)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 38 is ‘Approval of Minister for underground disposal’. I ask the question: can you explain the rationale to make section 76(8)’s target class of person exempt from the requirement to obtain approval under this section?

Ms PULFORD: This is a red tape reduction measure about streamlining the approvals process for less contentious matters. So for the less contentious matters, it is one approval process to run through rather than two.

Clause agreed to; clauses 39 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 (15:55)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 44 is ‘Power to give directions concerning dams’. My question is: are the new powers under clause 44 delegable powers?

Ms PULFORD: Yes.

Clause agreed to; clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 (15:55)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 46 is ‘Power of Minister to carry out work’, and my question is the same as in clause 44: are the new powers under clause 46 delegable?

Ms PULFORD: They are.

Clause agreed to; clauses 47 to 82 agreed to.

Clause 83 (15:56)

Mr DAVIS: Clause 83 is ‘part 11A inserted’, so that is a new part 11A, ‘Salinity mitigation’. I am asking the minister if she could just explain how the new requirements to publish differ from those in the Water Act 1989.

Ms PULFORD: This part of the bill codifies existing salinity policy, which has not existed in legislation before. It dates back to 1994, and it will effect no change for anyone.

Mr Davis: Is it for clarity?

Ms PULFORD: Yes, clarity and the standing of being in legislation rather than being policy.

Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. As a further point, under this insertion here there is section 232A, ‘Functions and powers of the Minister as to salinity mitigation’, and I ask: can you explain the rationale for that new section?

Ms PULFORD: So these are powers that the Victorian water minister holds as a feature of federal legislation, so the commonwealth Water Act 2007. This will enable the Victorian water minister to delegate these responsibilities to the relevant water corporation so that they can continue performing a function that they are already performing.

Mr DAVIS: Thank you; that is helpful. The further question on this part is on new section 232B, ‘Fixing salinity impact charges’. I would like to ask the minister if she could explain the imposition of salinity impact charges proposed in this bill and how they differ from the present system.

Ms PULFORD: There are no new charges, there are no increases. This is very similar to the question earlier about why there was no RIS—there was no RIS because there is no change.

Clause agreed to; clauses 84 to 128 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (16:01): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (16:01): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.