Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

They are. They go to constraint removal, which could be a project identified to get more water down the river. Do you see flooding liability issues as being a non-physical constraint in increasing river flows? Rivers' operators or state authorities hold the ultimate responsibility and liability for adverse flooding impacts—and it is a particular issue for the upper catchment in Victoria, which is why I am asking these questions—on private property. The state authorities and river operators might act in an ultraconservative way in releasing the environmental water because they are liable. I am seeking solutions or for someone to categorically state who is responsible—because I have asked these questions in estimates and I have asked them during the inquiry and I am still not clear—for the unintended flooding of private property as a result of environmental flow releases from dams. Would the Commonwealth consider indemnifying the states from flooding liability caused by the delivery of the environmental watering plans? I would really appreciate some clarity around that. I am not trying to be difficult; I have asked these questions before and I would seek a response, please.

I do apologise. I note that the government will not be responding to those questions, which could equally apply to the bill itself—and my understanding is that the overall question before us today is actually that the bill be agreed to—but I would seek that the Greens, given that they are talking about how the money in the special account will be spent, actually give the upper catchment landholders in Victoria an understanding of who they think is legally responsible for any flooding events that may be caused on their properties as a result of releasing water for environmental flows.

Question negatived.