Category: housing

Source: Ministers for Social Services

24 October 2024

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

SUBJECTS: Melbourne Water flood rezoning in Kensington Banks; future of the NDIS

TOM ELLIOTT, HOST: So, a couple of years ago there were those terrible floods in mainly, well, it was all up and down the Maribyrnong River, but particularly in Kensington. There was a group of, or there was a bit of land that had previously been considered flood prone and then it wasn’t, so people built houses on it. And then during the floods, hundreds of houses got badly flooded. And these people now face a future where if they want to sell their house, well, it’s going to be very difficult because it’s now a declared flood zone. If they say no, it will stay, but we need to insure our house against future floods, well, that would be hideously expensive because we’ve already had a flood. It’s not dissimilar to suddenly having, you know, having a fire, a bushfire, and your house is suddenly declared to be in a bushfire zone when it wasn’t previously in a bushfire zone. Our next guest is a Member for Maribyrnong. He’s also the Minister for the NDIS in the Federal government, Bill Shorten, good morning.

BILL SHORTEN, MINISTER FOR THE NDIS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Good morning, Tom.

ELLIOTT: So, I got this right. We’ve got a group of your constituents who are in flood damaged homes and see no way out.

SHORTEN: Yeah, listen in June of this year, Melbourne Water had been doing some modelling about increased flood risk. And the great irony is sometimes in the west and the northwest of Melbourne, we feel we get things last compared to the Southeast, whether or not that’s true, it’s sometimes how we feel. But Melbourne Water very kindly decided to evaluate the flood risk in the Maribyrnong and before other parts of Melbourne and residents in Kensington, and Freshwater on the other side of the Maribyrnong, who bought in good faith land and houses, put their investment, their single most important investment, discovered on about 17 June, sometimes just through the media reporting, not even, you know, advance notice, that the rules had changed all of a sudden that their houses were in flood risk areas.

I want to be very clear. We should look after all Australians who are in, you know, bushfires or flood risk areas. But these residents did the due diligence and Kensington Banks did not have the flood rating that it’s now got. Now, the flood ratings, we’ve got to deal with truth. If because of climate change or other reasons, there’s an increased flood rating, that’s a development, the science is the science. But what’s happened since June is that Melbourne Water, in my opinion, has been singularly deficient in the way in which they communicate with the residents whose lives they’ve changed. They’ve got people have got to think about what does it mean for their safety, but I think more practically their house values, the cost of insurance. And I held a public meeting Tuesday night, the local state member for Melbourne was there, Ellen Sandell, Daniel Mulino, who covers some of the federal turf on the other side of the river. We got the head of the Insurance Council of Australia there, we’ve got the Coordinator General, the National Emergency Management Authority. Melbourne Water had said they were coming, but then they thought it was all too political, so they didn’t turn up on the panel. You can’t keep people in the dark, Tom. You’ve got to tell them the truth.

ELLIOTT: So, okay, so there’s a short and a long-term issue I’m seeing here. So, on one hand you hold a public meeting to try and talk reasonably and responsibly about this changing of the flood rating and Melbourne Water, which has the power to do things about it, doesn’t show up. So, that’s one issue. The second issue, long term, is there something that Melbourne Water could do to try and offset the flood risk? Because, I mean, I look at Flemington and the VRC. I mean, several years ago they built a giant wall, which meant that they’re sort of, they seem to be immune from floods now. Could something like that be done?

SHORTEN: Yes. The short answer, yes. I was able to get the Water Minister, Harriet Shing, on the phone when I realised Melbourne Water had just pulled the plug at short notice. She made them turn up, but at least they turned up and sat up the back and took some notes. So, there was some poor old Melbourne Water staff there, but they were let down by their leadership. So, the short-term issue is when you give the community a major development, major news, which is like your house values are tanked at the moment until we get mitigation strategies in place, you don’t get to be the only people who call the shots. The community have a say, they have a voice.

And the point about this is the people, they’re not sort of, this is not some radical issue. This is your own home. A statutory authority said, hello, your own home, the value of it, we’re going to make a decision based on science and it affects your home value. But what’s happened is Melbourne Water think that they’re the only experts on consultation, so they’ve got their processes. I’m not saying they haven’t done anything. They put out a leaflet telling people how to floodproof their kitchens. You know, like, that’s not a strategy.

To go to the long-term question, you’re asking. I’ve been the Insurance Minister in Australia. I’ve seen what we’re able to do at Roma and where you build levies, mitigate, I’ve seen what’s happened in Launceston with a Tamar, when you build levies, it works. But Melbourne Water’s sort of got their own secret squirrel process on what they’re going to do and their options, and they’re keeping residents in the dark. I don’t think they’re adequately talking to the Federal Government or council and I’m just calling out an arrogant statutory body who thinks that somehow, they’re above talking to people on any other terms other than the rules they set.

ELLIOTT: So, is it possible that Melbourne Water behind the scenes, will agree to build some sort of a wall or a levee? Or are they just saying, no, no, no, the river, we have to let the river do what the river wants to do or what?

SHORTEN: No, I think they’ve put out a tender, not that anyone else has seen the terms of reference, to look at mitigation options. The thing is, it’s now been four months. Melbourne Water’s moving to the beat of their own drum, to the beat of their own clock. That’s not satisfactory. The residents, the people who are affected, have been kept in limbo and stressed for four months. When the local elected representatives call a meeting, which the statutory body, Melbourne Water, says they’re coming to, then they pull out at the last minute because they think it’s political, when you – statutory bodies are not above dealing with the rest of us. So, I’m filthy at the way Melbourne Water’s handled the consultation so far. Their leadership need to get their head out of their bottom and start talking to people not just in the way they want to, but in the way that people need to be involved in.

ELLIOTT: Well, I’ll tell you what, we will get in touch with Melbourne Water and just see if we can perhaps expedite that process a bit. Tell me, I mean, your constituents are affected. It must be, you know, like a man’s house is his castle and all that sort of thing. But to not know the future of hundreds of properties, like, are we going to be permanently flood prone or is a wall going to be built? Or if we sell, do we take a massive loss? I mean, that must be making life very difficult for some people.

SHORTEN: It is very stressful for people. I actually think the Kensington Banks residents have been remarkably reasonable. I mean, they’re toey, toeier than a Roman sandal. I get that. But they’ve been more reasonable than I think maybe you or I would be in the same circumstances. Melbourne Water just has to change their approach. They can’t – you know, no more control freak behaviour. They’ve got to set up an advisory board, all levels of government, you know, down there, you know, there’s public transport, railway bridges, there’s industry that are affected. You’ve got to get those; you’ve got to get the community there. There’s got to be full transparency on the modelling. What are the terms of reference? I mean, floods are not new in Australia.

ELLIOTT: No.

SHORTEN: In Lismore where unfortunately they get a lot of floods, they’ve got this Northern Rivers living laboratory where they have a shop front and the citizens can come in and say, oh, this is what we think is a good idea. They can see what ideas are being done. Melbourne Water, I think, needs to up its, bring its A game to stakeholder consultation in a way which it doesn’t say it controls everything. That’s for the whole Maribyrnong catchment area.

ELLIOTT: Well, we’ll get in touch with them and see if we can get them on the program and I’ll put your concerns to them. Now, look, you’re retiring in a few months. Are you going to have the NDIS all sorted out before you vacate the office?

SHORTEN: The NDIS is like painting the harbour bridge. When you get to one end of it, you start again. But do I think that we’re getting on top of some of the rorts? Yes, I’m changing jobs, not retiring. The thing about it is, when I came in at the beginning of the three years, I knew the scheme was changing lives for the better, but there was a complete naivety about how to administer the scheme. What we’ve done in the last two and a half years is we’ve upped the tempo on catching crooks. We’ve now got 500 investigations, we’ve got 55, 56 people in the courts or heading to court. We’ve got people in jail now. We’ve now said what you can spend money on after talking to people, what you can’t spend money on. We’re now sorting out the assessment process. We’ve now got the legal ability to make sure the assessment process is consistent, transparent and equitable. I love the scheme, I’m very proud of it. The rest of the world looks at it. The idea of giving a personal budget to people with profound and severe disabilities and their families is life changing. But we need to register most of the service providers, they weren’t registered. We need a much better back office in the way we – you can’t just put in an invoice with no ABN and no explanation and expect to get paid. All of these matters we’ve now either stopped or got the legal authority to start stamping out. So, I do think the NDIS is on a more sustainable trajectory. So, it’s there for future generations and it’s serving the original purpose of the scheme.

ELLIOTT: Look, good luck with that and good luck with your future career as I think it’s Vice Chancellor of Canberra University, Bill Shorten there. He’s still the NDIS Minister and the Member for Maribyrnong and, well, very passionate about the shortcomings of Melbourne Water

MIL OSI News –