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