Seriously, as an Australian, I don’t have any real problem with this.
We’re the driest continent on earth (absent technical arguments about Antartica). Water is a scarce resource. We already have to pay for it - all these changes would do is help break down further what people are paying for and that allows for fairer charging.
I live in Melbourne - we are on what are referred to as Level 3 water restrictions and have been for some time. We’ve been told that we’ll always be on some degree of restriction [We’d love climate change to be real as most predictions say Melbourne, in the long run, would get more water.] Doing what they can to ensure people don’t waste water is a great idea. It might not be needed in other places. But for us, it is essential.
Toilets are one of the easiest things to make more efficient. The main reason most people haven’t done so here is because of the cost. This might provide an incentive to people to think about what they are doing.
The intent is strictly speaking to stop people flushing when they need to - but to generate less water.
I limit myself to three minute showers, and have water efficient toilets installed. My washing machine isn’t water efficient, but it’s on the way out and when I buy a new one that one will be. I’d rather not continue to subsidise those who simply waste water.
This isn’t an insane overreaction by environmentalists. It’s reflection of living in a dry place. The largest dam supplying Melbourne is 20% full. It was last full in 1996.
It sounds like a big time compromise in hygiene and a potential disease risk mandated by bureaucratic interference to me. Didn’t a bunch of you get killed recently by wildfires that spread largely because of intrusive Leftist restrictions on clearing woodland fire hazards?