Tuesday, 28 July 2026

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (12:48): (1380) My question is for the Minister for Water. There have been recent reports that the Victorian Labor government has commissioned consultancy firm EY to examine future options for Melbourne Water, including options that could involve selling, leasing or otherwise monetising some or all of its assets. Minister, will you rule out selling off, leasing, privatising or otherwise monetising Melbourne Water?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (12:49): Thank you, Ms Gray-Barberio, for this question, and thank you for the opportunity to talk to the importance of water and natural resource infrastructure investment, which we have delivered time and time again not alongside the cooperation and support of those opposite but despite it. We are not the ones who need to explain our plans for Melbourne Water. In fact it was actually the Liberals who took a plan to privatise Melbourne Water to the 2018 and 2022 elections.

Aiv Puglielli: On a point of order, President, I am not seeking to interrupt, however, the question was asked to the government, not to the opposition. The minister should return to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Yes. I will ask the minister to continue.

Harriet SHING: With the benefit of 2 minutes and 25 seconds, I do just want to provide a little bit of context here, because this is a big issue, and I think it warrants some further detail in the way in which we talk about it. Why don’t I start with the end point that I suspect might provide you with comfort in the same way that I have provided comfort to people in recent days following random media speculation? We do not have any plans to privatise Melbourne Water, but what I can tell you is that those opposite had plans to privatise Melbourne Water, because they took that as a promise –

David Davis: On a point of order, President, question time is not an opportunity to attack the opposition, nor is it an opportunity to tell rampant and blatant lies.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: I call the chamber to order. The minister was responding to Ms Gray-Barberio’s question. If we could keep the noise down, then Ms Gray-Barberio would be able to hear the answer to her question.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, the minister did attack the opposition, and she is not to do that in question time. I am therefore asking: will you –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: No, it is not part of question time for the minister to attack the opposition, and I am asking for a ruling on that.

The PRESIDENT: The point of order is correct, and there are a number of previous rulings that question time is not an opportunity for a minister to attack the opposition. I would ask, though, too, that people not interject, particularly when a member of a different party is asking a question and the opposition are yelling. I ask for respect from everyone.

Harriet SHING: It is a great shame that in making his point of order Mr Davis referred to an attack when I referred to privatisation, because privatisation was exactly the playbook that was taken to the 2018 and 2022 elections. In particular in discussions while Victorians were battling floods that covered much of the state, they were proposing to sell off –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, not only is it an attack on the opposition, it is also a lie, and it is not open to the minister to lie or to attack the opposition.

The PRESIDENT: There is a difference between attacking the opposition and comparing previous policies, and I believe the minister was comparing previous policies. Mr Davis, I ask you to refrain from stating that members have lied.

Harriet SHING: What we have just heard from Mr Davis is that they are ruling out any privatisation of water assets. That then is the statement of fact that I think we can extrapolate from today’s interjections from those opposite. I am not sure how they are going to pay for their $40 billion in cuts, but we have no plans to privatise Melbourne Water. That is not what we do –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, President, question time is not a time to attack the opposition, and I ask you to bring her back to the question.

The PRESIDENT: I am not too sure whether that was an attack or whether that was picking up an interjection which was unruly. I ask the minister to ignore interjections.

Harriet SHING: It will be a delight to ignore those opposite. What I will say is that we invest in water infrastructure, we do not privatise it. The reason that we invest in it is because Victorians need it and they deserve it. Even when you across the way turn on the tap here in Melbourne, a quarter of the water that comes out of that tap is from the desalination plant that you opposed year on year and that you have had howls of protest on. We have now placed the largest order available for the desalination plant: two-thirds of a trillion litres of water are coming to a drought-affected state as the population grows and the seasonal rainfall continues to reduce. We do not privatise, we invest. We do not turn our backs on the needs of a growing state – unlike you. The only way you can pay for $40 billion in cuts is to privatise whatever you can find. We know that that is what you will do. You have done it before, and if given half the chance, you will do it again, and Victorians will be the ones who pay.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (12:55): Thank you, Minister. You may have ruled it out – you are not going to privatise Melbourne Water – but my question also involves selling, leasing or monetising Melbourne Water. In England and Wales privatisation of water has been a total disaster, with people seeing skyrocketing water bills, while waterways have been used to discharge sewage, causing rivers, lakes and seas to have negative environmental and health impacts, and investment in critical water infrastructure has fallen behind demand. With an unmet demand needed to source an additional 5 billion litres of water a day by 2050, giving our public assets to private corporations to make private profit means Victorians will pay more and get worse services. Minister, how can Victorians be confident that your Labor government will not lease Melbourne Water to a private corporation when that has been done with the land titles office, the port, public housing and VicRoads?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (12:56): I will reject the last statement you made about public housing. Again, two-thirds of the housing in Victoria that is social housing is public, it remains public and we continue to invest in partnerships. Again, unfounded media speculation causes a great deal of concern and uncertainty for people. I have ruled out that speculation. I have been very, very clear, including with people who represent those who work across the sector, unlike what we saw in 2022 when sewage works leases were part of the coalition’s manifesto before the election. In fact they put it in their books because that was the only way that they could meet their promises. What we know is, with a $40 billion promise for cuts, we are now seeing here today that there will be an announcement from the Liberals, from the One Nation coalition, that they will not privatise any kind of water infrastructure, but who knows, because they have done it before, they will do it again, and that is the only way that they can actually meet their commitments. We do not do that. We will not do that.