The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McKim, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Commonwealth Government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australian water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Commonwealth Government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australian water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government.

In the 1980s, Labor commenced one of the largest privatisation programs in the world and, since then, Australia has been systematically privatising almost every essential service that we've got. In the ensuing decades, Labor and the Liberals, state and federal, sold off nearly $250 billion in public assets. Every sell-off led to job cuts, higher prices for all of us and profits for the big corporations created by the government. The states sold off the electricity companies, and the price of our household bills went up. The government decided to hand the reins to the housing crisis over to property developers and private investors and stopped building public housing. Now the waiting list for public housing is almost 200,000 families long and tents are popping up in parks across the country as people are priced out of rentals.

Next on Labor's hit list appears to be Melbourne Water. In August this year, secret cabinet documents revealed the Victorian Labor Party has spent five years secretly examining the privatisation of Melbourne Water under a project codenamed Project Nerva, with then premier Jacinta Allan and senior ministers approving a 12-month business case in 2024 to bring private investors into water infrastructure worth almost $18 billion. The current Victorian Premier, Ben Carroll, also argued in favour of the plan. Melbourne Water isn't just about what comes out of Victorians' taps. It manages major catchments, reservoirs, water treatment infrastructure, waterways, stormwater and flood management right across Melbourne. Without water, we're cooked. This is not something that you hand to the highest bidder.

Victoria has a long history of selling or leasing public assets. The Port of Melbourne was leased for $9.7 billion. The VicRoads registration business was sold for around $7.9 billion. The land titles registry was sold for around $2.9 billion. Australia, as a nation, has an even longer one—Telstra, CommBank and Qantas. We have seen this film before. Every time an essential service gets privatised, people quite literally pay for it. The price goes up and the quality of service goes down.

In 1989, England and Wales became the only countries to fully privatise their water supply and sewerage, with the goal of attracting private capital that the government itself couldn't borrow. Decades later, the sector is widely seen as a cautionary tale due to steep price rises, infrastructure degradation and indebted private owners refusing to do the work to fix the infrastructure. Water bills are out of control, rising 36 per cent on average in recent years. But it is sewage spills that have become the most visible failure. Thames Water alone saw a 34 per cent year-on-year increase in serious pollution incidents. One local council reported 27,400 hours of raw sewage discharged into its rivers in a single year, a 25 per cent rise on the year before. Well done, Maggie Thatcher! There is now an active UK campaign to renationalise their water.

Privatisation has failed, and it is a failure that is shared by both of the major parties. Airports, ports, electricity, telecommunications, banks, toll roads—Labor and the Liberals have been selling off everything that isn't nailed down, and every time we've all ended up paying more for less. That's what we mean when we say that the major parties are selling you out for corporate profit. It's not a slogan. It is who they are working for. Here's the part that should really worry you. At the same time they're quietly planning to sell off our water, they're waving through AI data centres across our major cities that will guzzle enormous amounts of water and electricity. What do you think that does to your water or electricity bill? No wonder people are fed up. The major parties aren't running this system for you. They're running it for big corporations and billionaires. While One Nation points the finger at migrants, they take the money from exactly the same corporations and billionaires. Public services like water should stay in public hands and run for people, not for profit. We call on the federal government to commit to intervene against any proposal to privatise our water supply.

The ownership of water assets and water infrastructure is a matter for the states and territories. They own them, they run them and they are accountable for them. This is a feature of our federation. There is a constitutional firewall here. So I'm deeply suspicious when a senator from Tasmania raises questions about Victorian matters. The Carroll government has been explicit. There is no intention, none whatsoever, by the Carroll government to sell off Melbourne Water. However, the issue of water usage is highly topical right now. It is highly topical within the context of data centres. As you know, data centres are surging; interest in them is surging. Australia is in the midst of a data centre gold rush. We have about 165 data centres. We are projected to have 225 in the near future. Indeed, this is how many are in the pipeline right now. That equates to about $150 billion in investment by 2030. While interest in data centres is increasing from industry, this has also been associated with rising community backlash. Australians are deeply sceptical of data centres despite using this enabling infrastructure. They use too much power and too much water, and there's not enough community benefit.

In terms of usage, you might have looked at your online statement this morning. You might have looked up your medical results. You might have purchased something online. You might have done a bit of research. All those daily activities that we take for granted require the enabling infrastructure that's provided by data centres. In fact, the closer they are to cities, where large populations live, the faster you get your results. The latency is smaller. One in five Australians now pay for an AI subscription. We are amongst the highest users of AI in the world. One in three Australian businesses also pay for some type of AI. This technology, this capability, is now embedded within Australian society. We are using AI all the time, and that AI is supported by the foundational infrastructure that is data centres.

However, the Albanese government is well aware that data centres must earn and maintain their social licence. In March of this year we released a statement of expectations which clearly lays out what we believe are the rules of the road. If you want to come and build a data centre in Australia, then you need to play by the rules, and they're very clear. There are five expectations. The first expectation is that we want to ensure that Australia's national interest is prioritised. The second expectation is that we want to ensure that data centres support Australia's energy transition. They need to bring in their own energy rather than drain our energy and push up power prices. They must also provide for grid stability. The third expectation is that we want to see sustainable and efficient water usage. I'll come back to that. The fourth expectation is that we want to see a pull-through of investment in Australian jobs and skills. The final expectation, which is probably one of the most important expectations, is that we want to see data centres support our R&D, innovation, entrepreneurship and small businesses in this country. That is how we then grow a secondary and tertiary capability in this country.

On the topic of water usage—because that's salient to this discussion—right now in New South Wales data centres use around one per cent of water. In the next 10 years, this is projected to increase to 25 per cent of Sydney's water. That's a huge uptick, but we have said that we want to see water being used responsibly. We need data centre operators to work proactively with local communities and with water utility companies to use efficient cooling techniques and to use, where possible, recycled water rather than drinking water. This is not science fiction. It has actually been played out. AWS is currently building a data centre in Melbourne's west, and this data centre will be supplied by recycled water provided by Melton recycled water. So it can be done—we know it can be done and there is a proof of concept right here in Melbourne. In addition to that, we want to ensure that capabilities pull through by hiring and training up our own people in business, in entrepreneurship and in research and amongst our start-ups.

I thank Senator McKim for moving this motion, which One Nation supports. It's One Nation policy that infrastructure of national significance should remain in the hands of the government on behalf of the people—not under government control but on behalf of the people. This includes power transmission lines and substations. Power stations can be privately owned and operated under a long-term supply price, which prevents price gouging in times of power scarcity, which happens all the time with weather-dependent solar and wind power. It's a travesty that the business model for Snowy 2.0 hydro seeks to justify the $42 billion price tag using a projection for power prices which suggests they too expect a profit from price gouging. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is frequently forced to intervene in the market at $600 per megawatt hour, which is a staggeringly high price, because new gas-firming plants are not being required to accept a feed-in tariff. If it existed, it would be $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. Consumers are paying peak pricing which is 10 times the price they would pay if we built our baseload power stations with sensible supply contracts—fact.

Privatising infrastructure of national significance has failed. South Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2012. This was after the operator failed to maintain a sewage treatment works and Adelaide endured months of what was called the 'big pong'. Adelaide water went from being amongst our country's cheapest to our country's dearest. Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2019. The outcome in Western Australia was interesting. Perhaps Premier Carroll could pay attention there. During 25 years, the Western Australian government realised that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. Moving Western Australian water back to government ownership saved taxpayers $5 million a year. Now Victoria is the latest bankrupt state selling off the silverware—VicWater. The plan is called Project Nerva and circumvents the Victorian constitution through leasing the $18 billion in assets of VicWater to the highest bidder. Victorians will pay more for their water and receive back an asset in a worse state than when it was leased. Such is privatisation. It leads to a monopoly, which leads to profit maximisation, which leads to gouging. I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, and choice leads to accountability, and choice leads to efficiency and productivity. Given Australia's small population, though, and huge area, we cannot support two sets of critical infrastructure for roads, water and electricity. We cannot place monopoly power in corporate hands, where profit maximisation is the goal and leads to gouging.

What of government monopolies? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, thought of that and came up with a solution—actually, they borrowed it from the American constitution. The solution is embedded in our Constitution. States provide infrastructure and critical services. That comes under competitive federalism. One state competes with another state. That's a marketplace in governance. There is choice. If South Australia is stuffing things up, South Australians can move to New South Wales or Queensland. It doesn't matter what it is. Whether it's education, infrastructure, water, electricity, roads—whatever it is, there is no monopoly, because the states have competition under competitive federalism. That provides a marketplace in governance, which leads to choice. If you don't like the state you're in, you can move to another state. Freedom of movement leads to accountability. So state ownership of critical infrastructure is part of a marketplace solution.

There's not enough time to tell you about Sir Joh, but Sir Joh abolished death duties in Queensland, and people moved to Queensland so that they could leave their children more money. That led to other states doing the same. Warren Buffett, the most successful investor ever, said his ideal investment is the sole drawbridge on a wide river. When you put it in private hands, infrastructure becomes a mechanism for gouging. We must protect national infrastructure and national services like water. They're key resources.

Victorian Labor's proposal to sell off Melbourne Water is a complete dud of an idea. It could lead to higher bills and put our clean water, public health and communities at further risk. We know exactly what happens when we privatise water. Just look at the United Kingdom. The privatisation of water in England and Wales has been a complete disaster. Water bills are skyrocketing. Sewage is literally being pumped into rivers and beaches. Infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate while private companies have piled up debt and paid billions of dollars in dividends to shareholders.

This is water we're talking about. Water bills are expected to rise by an average of 36 per cent between 2025 and 2030. Thames Water alone has seen serious pollution incidences that have risen by 34 per cent in a single year. After decades of privatisation, customers are now being asked to pay for the massive infrastructure upgrades that should have happened years ago. That's what happens when you put an essential public service in the hands of private companies. The priority becomes money making, not delivering a good service—surprise, surprise.

Labor is treating our public assets like items at a garage sale, and now we know they've been looking to do the exact same thing with Melbourne Water. Shame on them. Secret cabinet documents reveal that Victorian Labor has spent years examining the privatisation of Melbourne Water under a project codenamed Project Nerva. In 2024, the then premier, Jacinta Allan, and senior ministers approved a 12-month business case that looked at private investment in water infrastructure, which was worth $18 billion. According to reporting, then deputy premier Ben Carroll supported continuing the proposal in cabinet.

Now, of course, Premier Carroll is trying to distance himself from it, but Victorians deserve a straight answer. Is Labor going to sell off Melbourne Water or not? We deserve to know. There's an election coming up in fewer than three months. This isn't just some abstract financial asset. This is our water. This is life. It is one of the most basic things that people rely on every single day. You cannot choose whether you need clean drinking water, you can't shop around when your taps run dry or pump out polluted water and you certainly shouldn't have to worry about a private company cutting corners on the infrastructure that keeps our water clean because it wants to maximise returns for shareholders.

Flogging off publicly owned assets makes us poorer in the long run. When is Labor going to learn this crucial lesson? If we lose control of essential services, we lose the public income those assets can generate and we hand them over to companies who are ultimately looking to make a profit. What could possibly go wrong? Labor, of course, has form here. They've already sold off public assets across roads, rail, energy, telecommunications, banks and airports. Is it water next? We've seen the same market-first approach creep into essential services like child care and aged care, where private companies and private equity have increasingly been allowed to make money from the services that should be about people and for people. They should be for Australians, not for shareholders. Billions of dollars of public money from providing care to our children is being siphoned off to shareholder pockets, including offshore—privatisation that is directly linked to lower standards of care. Now they are coming for our water.

Labor has become the party of privatisation. They don't stand for you. They don't stand for me. They stand for their donors and profit holders. Too often they stand with big business and private investors who see our public assets as something that can be bought, sold and profited from. This is why the Commonwealth government needs to urgently step in. The Albanese government should make it clear that it will not stand by while Victorian Labor considers selling off Melbourne Water's system. Clean water should not be a political football or a corporate investment opportunity, and I cannot believe I even need to say that. It should remain in public hands.

Labor, the Liberals and One Nation might all be comfortable with privatisation—although I note that Senator Roberts is opposing this—but the Greens are against privatisation of our public and essential services. We are against profit in care. When it comes to keeping public goods in public hands, the Greens will fight every attempt to sell off Victoria's water and every other attempt to privatise our essential services. Victoria's water belongs to Victorians, not to private investors.

Obviously, I'm no communist. I think you all know that. I believe in capitalism, competition, private enterprise and the right of people to make some money without asking a government bureaucrat holding a clipboard for some permission. But even I, the most committed free-market capitalist that you will meet in this place, understand that there are some things that you just do not sell, and Melbourne Water is one of them. You don't even talk about selling it.

If the Victorian Labor government is seriously considering this, and I think it is, then it should just stop. Stop right there in your tracks. Water is not just another commodity, and Melbourne Water is not just another business. What is it? It's a natural monopoly. You don't sell the front door to your house and then act surprise when the new owner starts deciding who gets inside that house. And you do not sell control of your water, your electricity grid, your prime agricultural lands, your ports et cetera to a private company—and certainly not a foreign controlled one—and then congratulate yourself on the efficiency of the transaction.

As a Victorian, I do not want us to make the exact same mistakes that we've seen elsewhere in Australia—for example, in South Australia. They sold their power network. It is now foreign owned, and it was sold by a Liberal state government. Do you know what? Some assets are different. As I said, water is not just another commodity. Electricity is not just another business. Roads, ports and other critical infrastructure are arteries of a modern nation. Without water, there is no city, there is no agriculture, there is no industry—there is no economy, obviously. When those arteries are controlled by people whose first obligation could potentially be to shareholders—overseas shareholders perhaps, or maybe even interests outside the country—what are we doing? We're creating a vulnerability that no accountant can put back on the balance sheet.

There is also a basic difference between a competitive private market and an essential monopoly. For example, if you don't like a supermarket, shop at another one. If you don't like an airline, choose another one; fly with them. But you cannot simply choose another water network. You can't build yourself another electricity grid. These assets exist because generations of Australians built them, paid for them and also depend upon them. Governments of today should not assume that they have the moral right just to sell off what previous generations built and what future generations are going to need. Obviously, this doesn't mean shutting ourselves off from the world. I believe in trading with the world. I believe in welcoming investment into Australia and into our states, but there's a difference between welcoming foreign investment and handing the keys to your house over to possibly a foreign controlled company.

We should cooperate with all. Tick. Sure. We should trade with all. Tick. Sure. But we absolutely must remain the masters of our own destiny. And governments need to stop treating essential public assets like a garage sale whenever they have mismanaged the budget, which, in my opinion, is going on here, because Victoria's broke. Sell the asset, take the cheque, spend the money and leave the next generation with nothing—that is not responsible economic management. That is just akin to, I don't know, pawning the family silver or something.

Once these assets are gone, there's no getting them back. It's really that simple. The cheque gets spent, the budget hole remains, the infrastructure is gone, and the public is left paying for something that it once used to own. That is the great trick of this type of privatisation. When it's done badly, one generation may get some cash but every generation after that is just going to get the bill.

Now, how absurd is it that we sent our young men and women overseas to defend our sovereignty in multiple wars, two world wars, only to then surrender it with a pen for a cheque? A government that hands over ownership of its water, power and essential infrastructure is surrendering part of the practical control that makes sovereignty real. Melbourne Water needs to remain in Victorian hands, in Australian hands, and, more broadly than that, we should never allow the pursuit of short-term revenue to become the long-term surrender of our nation.

I rise to very much support my colleagues for bringing this motion, calling on the Commonwealth government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australia's water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government. It's remarkable that this information has only come out because of secret cabinet documents in Victoria finally seeing the light of day, because it turns out Victorian Labor—like NSW Labor, like federal Labor, like Labor parties and their mates in the coalition—have been secretly planning to flog off pretty much everything that is held in public hands.

What has Victorian Labor been doing? Well, they've been working away, beavering away, bringing in their consultants and their lawyers—the same grifters who feed off the public every time—and putting them under this thing called Project Nerva. Well, what a bloody nerve! The then premier, Jacinta Allan, brought her senior ministers in—the water minister, the treasurer—and approved a 12-month business case to work out how to flog off and privatise Victoria's water supply and Melbourne's water supply.

And who did they bring in to do their dirty work? Well, the usual mob that the coalition and Labor bring in to do their dirty work. First of all, they appointed consulting giant EY, Ernst & Young, to come in and examine fresh options for how they could flog off different parts of Melbourne's water supply—'Maybe just flog off the treatment plants, or maybe flog off a future revenue stream for water recycling.' EY came in and worked with the then water minister and the then premier and started building this Project Nerva for Victorian Labor. And, of course, Victorian Labor's got form in this regard, with what they did with VicRoads—the $7.9 billion that they got from privatising part of VicRoads.

Not happy with just giving public money to EY, Victorian Labor then decided to bring in more of the grifters. They had their second tranche to try and push Project Nerva, the privatisation of Melbourne's water supplies, and they brought in KPMG and Clayton Utz. The reason they had to bring in Clayton's was that there's a constitutional prohibition in Victoria about flogging off the water assets, so they brought in big-end-of-town lawyers to try and work their way around the constitutional prohibition against flogging off the water assets. Between them, those grifters—KPMG and Clayton Utz—sucked in another 6.15 million bucks to bring this business case together to try and do a job on the Victorian constitution so that Labor could flog off and privatise Victoria's water supply.

Get this. When they're finally outed—when the second iteration came back to the Victorian cabinet, who was one of the ministers who dug in and said: 'Yes, we've got to privatise the water. We need to make the money off it. Bring in the grifters'? Who was one of those ministers? Then deputy premier—I'm trying to remember what the bloke's name is—Carroll, now Premier of Victoria. He's the guy who dug in and said, 'Yes, absolutely, we should flog it off', even when the mood was going against him in cabinet. Then—get this—that same bloke, now the Premier, when he's been outed about trying to privatise Melbourne's water supply, puts out this response to the media when he's asked about it. He says: 'The One Nation-Liberal coalition needs to come clean. Will they rule out privatising Melbourne Water?'

You cannot make this stuff up. You cannot make this up. He's been in cabinet pushing for Project Nerva, pushing for the privatisation. When he's outed about it, he says: 'Oh, well, hang on—will the coalition privatise it? You've got to ask them!' The gall of this stuff.

Watch what they do. Labor flogged off the Commonwealth Bank. They flogged off Qantas. In my home state of New South Wales, the Labor Party and the coalition between them have made travelling on our roads so expensive it can cost you 70 bucks to go from the CBD up to Baulkham Hills and back. They privatise every bloody thing. I support this motion 100 per cent and I support the work of my colleagues in Victoria and across this country 100 per cent—Greens fighting to stop this privatisation grift.

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.