Chapter 1
Introduction
Conduct of the inquiry
1.1
The National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012 (the bill) was
referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (the
committee) on the recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee in its
report of 22 March 2012.[1]
1.2
The committee received seven submissions. No public hearings were held
however the committee did seek responses from the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities to questions that arose during
the inquiry.[2]
Background to the bill
The National Water Commission
1.3
The National Water Commission (NWC) was created under the National
Water Commission Act 2004. Agreement to establish the NWC was reached
through the intergovernmental agreement on the National Water Initiative in
2004 through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). This
intergovernmental agreement was signed by all governments at the June 2004 COAG
meeting with the exception of Tasmania, which signed the Agreement on 3 June
2005, and Western Australia, which signed the Agreement on 6 April 2006.[3]
1.4
The NWC is independent of individual governments but has reporting
obligations to COAG and to the public.[4]
The NWC oversees implementation of the National Water Initiative—Australia's
blueprint for reform, management and use of water resources.[5]
The NWC advises COAG and the Commonwealth government on national water issues
and the progress of the National Water Initiative (NWI).
1.5
Under the Water Act 2007, the NWC acquired the function to audit
the effectiveness of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and
associated water resource plans. In addition, the NWC currently manages 177
projects under the $250 million Raising National Water Standards Program.[6] These projects fund research where knowledge
gaps on topics relevant to policy or its implementation exist, or development
of tools to assist delivery of technical tasks.[7]
1.6
When it was established the NWC was tasked with creating benchmarks from
which water management reform could be measured, and was also required to
report on this progress, '...auditing the actions of jurisdictions against agreed
milestones, and to assess the quality and direction of reform and impediments
to achieving the objectives of the NWI.’[8]
1.7
The NWC Act specifies that a review of the ongoing role and functions of
the NWC must be completed by the end of 2011, and that the NWC will expire on
30 June 2012. The review of the NWC Act was undertaken by Dr David Rosalky,
with the findings of this review published in a report titled COAG Review of
the National Water Commission, 6 December 2011.
Review of NWC
1.8
In summary, Dr Rosalky's review of the NWC found that the NWI was
effective in implementing COAG's water reform agenda, and that it enjoys the
support of most stakeholders. The review found that while the NWI was making
inroads in reform, '...the full benefits from those initiatives require further
elements of the NWI to be put in place'.[9]
It also found that the original timeframes established for the NWI were
ambitious and that key reforms had not been fully implemented due to their
technically and politically complex nature.[10]
1.9
In particular the review noted:
The elements of the NWI still to be implemented are, by their
nature, the more difficult ones and the role that can be played by a specialist
and independent body like the NWC is likely to be even more important in the
future.[11]
1.10
The review noted that the impact of the NWI had been widely felt and
that many communities were relying on stressed water supplies, increasing the
need for credible audit and assessment processes on progress made on the NWI.
It also noted that a platform for highly technical research related to water resources,
riverine systems and communities and industries reliant on them, is needed to
inform and implement relevant policy. The Rosalky review advised that an
independent forum to allow engagement between governments, researchers, policy
makers and other stakeholders was needed, and that the NWC was ideally placed
to provide this.[12]
1.11
The review considered that three key services provided by the NWC were
also key achievements of the Commission. These are:
- Monitoring and audit of reform activity;
-
Assessments of reform activity; and
-
Knowledge leadership.[13]
1.12
As a single entity the NWC offers free flow of information on its key
functions and the status of water reform.
The state of the NWI agenda and the standing and capacity
that the NWC has built to support that agenda make the timing of the sunset
provision in the NWC Act inopportune. The focus of consideration at this stage
should be how the NWC can most effectively perform the core services it has
been providing in the changed circumstances that have merged over the past
seven years.[14]
Review recommendations
1.13
The review made 31 specific recommendations. In summary, the review
concluded that the sunsetting of the NWC on 30 June 2012 was inappropriate and
that it should continue for the duration of the NWI with similar governance
arrangements. A comprehensive external review of the NWC every five years was
recommended.[15]
1.14
The review recommended that the oversight, audit and assessment of water
reforms in each jurisdiction should continue and that knowledge leadership and
dissemination of methods and innovation for reform was an important function.[16]
It also recommended that the NWC should encompass all reforms associated with
implementation of the NWI, including those associated with the Murray-Darling
Basin.[17]
1.15
The review recommended that the legislation be amended to implement the
recommendations of the review, and provide for provision of reports and studies
by the NWC to COAG and COAG's subordinate processes.[18]
1.16
The recommendations are reproduced at Appendix 1.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page