4.1
The Murray-Darling Basin (basin) is a vast hydrological system which spans multiple jurisdictions. There are six governments involved in its management, which has resulted in considerable institutional, legislative, and policy complexity. Information is dispersed across agencies and jurisdictions, and there are technological and other constraints which give rise to specific challenges and can hinder efforts to improve the quality of information. Without access to quality water information, communities can be excluded from meaningfully contributing to deliberations and decisions that impact them. Conversely, transparency plays an essential role in ensuring the effective multijurisdictional management and execution of the Basin Plan by facilitating insight into the varied approaches of governments to water management.
4.2
This chapter explores key transparency and information issues which were raised during the committee's inquiry. These include: the complexity of the legislative, policy and institutional landscape; water literacy and some misinformation; contested interpretations of the Basin Plan; information dispersal; technological constraints; water accounting; calls for a water audit; water models and water years; transparency of decisions; and financial transparency. The chapter concludes by summarising some current initiatives to improve transparency in the basin and providing the committee's view and recommendations.
Complexity of the legislative, policy and institutional landscape
4.3
A large number of government agencies, across multiple levels of government and jurisdictions, have roles in managing the basin and implementing the Basin Plan. Additionally, significant and numerous water reforms have been occurring simultaneously in the basin over several decades. A diverse range of stakeholders advised the committee that this has resulted in a complex landscape of institutions, legislation and policies which can prove a significant barrier for stakeholders seeking to meaningfully engage in discussions about water management.
4.4
At the committee's hearing in Griffith, the Executive Director of the Ricegrowers' Association of Australia, Mr Graeme Kruger, explained that it is not only the Water Act 2007 (Water Act) or the Basin Plan that stakeholders have to understand, but also the National Water Initiative, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, state-based water legislation, water sharing plans, water resource plans, and the roles and interactions of various Commonwealth and state agencies. Mr Kruger described this legislative, policy, and institutional landscape as a 'minefield'.
4.5
Dr Emma Carmody, Special Counsel, Environmental Defenders Office, explained that the intricacy of federal water legislation can create misunderstanding in communities. She noted that the degree of connectivity between different parts of the Water Act and Basin Plan means that:
…a layperson almost certainly will have difficulty correctly interpreting individual provisions in the act. I often see people picking up the act and saying that X provision in the Basin Plan or Water Act says this and therefore this is what is correct. Unfortunately, because of the high degree of connectivity between the different parts and sections of both of those pieces of legislation, you almost can never read a particular provision in isolation of another provision, which makes it very complicated...
4.6
Dr Carmody advised that water legislation and regulations in each of the basin states can also be lengthy, complex, and difficult to understand. By way of example, Dr Carmody explained some of the practicalities of working within a complex multijurisdictional system:
I was looking over some advice that I prepared for a client back in 2017 about the legal regime governing levee banks in Queensland. That was 20-page advice about one discrete question put to us by one client. It required extensive research over a period of months and we spent some $2,000 dollars undertaking company and title searches to acquire the information we needed regarding the properties in question and the water rights in question to support the advice. That's one piece of advice for one client on one issue in one jurisdiction. You can extrapolate from that and see what a complex exercise it is for any lawyer advising clients about water to advise across those five jurisdictions and ensure that you maintain currency, because the law obviously changes.
4.7
A member of the Lifeblood Alliance, Ms Juliet Le Feuvre, argued that it can be challenging to understand how the Basin Plan relates to existing state water arrangements or whether states' water resource plans (WRPs) fulfil the requirements of the plan:
The trouble is that the architecture of the Basin Plan and the architecture of the Victorian Water Act are completely different from each other, the whole way the thing is set up; and the kinds of instruments under the Commonwealth Water Act and the Basin Plan are completely different from the instruments under the Victorian Water Act, so it's virtually impossible to understand how the two relate to each other. The Victorian government have said in their WRPs, 'This bit of our framework meets this requirement in the Basin Plan.' That's essentially what they've done. They've picked bits out of their own system of sustainable water strategies, water management plans and everything else they do, and they've said, 'This bit meets that Basin Plan requirement.' I think the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) [stated] this is a complicated process and nobody outside of a few experts can actually understand what's going on…there was a real failure to engage with the Victorian community on those plans because nobody understood what they were about…the whole process is cloaked in mystery, and nobody can really have any confidence that the WRPs are actually enacting what the Basin Plan says.
4.8
The National Irrigators' Council argued stakeholders typically maintain a working understanding of local arrangements, but that 'complexity across the basin is just a fact of life' and it may be 'impossible to understand all the nuances that are included in different legislation, regulations, plans and basic information about water administration'.
4.9
Dr Carmody argued that the legislation should be streamlined and simplified across all basin states to help reduce misunderstanding and conflict across the basin. Likewise, Water Communities SA argued that simplifying the plan would minimise misinterpretation.
4.10
Throughout the inquiry, stakeholders also expressed frustration over inconsistent terminology used across basin states and supported simplification. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) considered inconsistent terminology and barriers to harmonisation in detail in its water markets inquiry, and recommended standardisation of terminology where possible.
4.11
In addition to the general complexity of multijurisdictional aspects of water policy, stakeholders raised concerns regarding the complexity of specific aspects of the Basin Plan. For example, the National Irrigators' Council argued that it can be difficult for stakeholders to participate in water planning processes due to complexity of WRPs:
WRPs are complex and are not always well understood, even by those stakeholders directly concerned with their outcome. Typically, those stakeholders who are involved with the development of the WRPs have a working understanding of it, but WRPs are often difficult for external parties to understand, due to their complexity and broad scope. Some of the angst that has surfaced about WRPs has been a result of poor or incomplete understanding of the whole document. Sufficient information about WRPs should be available to all stakeholders and should include 'plain-English' versions to expand their uptake.
4.12
Given the complexity of the plan, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) argued that effective stakeholder consultation is essential. The NFF was critical of the 'shambolic' consultation processes used by some state governments which comprised: placing excessive volumes of lengthy and technical documents online; advertising consultations where most people would not see them; and holding public information sessions after an approach has been decided with little scope for community input. Based on numerous complaints received, the NFF advised it did not 'have confidence in the integrity of WRPs…developed'.
Community comprehension
4.13
The committee heard that poor understanding of hydrological systems, water legislation, policies, and the institutional landscape is being compounded by low levels of water literacy within some communities. For example, Mr Terry Court, Vice-President, Goulburn Valley Environment Group, argued:
The Basin Plan basically gets the blame for everything when it's actually far from that. It's a complete misunderstanding by a lot of people—I can assure you of that—of what the Basin Plan does, what trading does, where property rights have gone, transferability and so forth…we now have a community that's frustrated by all this.
4.14
Complex water arrangements can also make it difficult for people to understand which impacts they are seeing in the basin are the result of drought and which are due to management. The National Irrigators' Council argued that 'commentary which claims that dry rivers during drought means that the plan has failed, highlights ignorance of the intent and capability of the plan'.
4.15
The impact of institutional complexity on government accountability was explored further in Chapter 2; however, the issue is inextricably linked to poor transparency and accessibility of information. As noted by the NSW Irrigators' Council, complex water arrangements and poor understanding of the plan makes it difficult to pinpoint the cause of issues when they arise:
Many use the Basin Plan to point their fingers whenever there is a water management issue, when often, that issue may have arisen due to water sharing agreements (such as the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, or state based Water Sharing Plans), state based water allocation policies, river operations, or even the drought…Public misunderstanding is of course understandable when water policy is so complex, and tracking down exactly where the problem lies, is difficult even for trained professionals.
4.16
On a similar note, Mr Paul Pierotti, Water Spokesperson, Griffith Business Chamber argued that for business it is difficult to understand which water issues should be pursued at the state or Commonwealth level. He suggested there is 'an absolute mess in terms of the community being able to understand the different levels of bureaucracy and legislation'.
4.17
Mr Mick Keelty AO, the then Interim Inspector-General Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources, told the committee that his review into water sharing arrangements found that the complexity of water arrangements in the basin, combined with lack of water literacy in the community, was resulting in misplaced accusations. Mr Keelty explained that some farmers and irrigators did not understand why they had had zero water allocations year-on-year and believed it was due to the Basin Plan, when it was actually due to differences in the way that states operationalise the Murray-Darling Agreement (the agreement which sets out the basis for how the water in the River Murray is shared between NSW, Victoria and South Australia).
4.18
The National Irrigators' Council argued that not only is the Basin Plan complex and difficult to understand, but there is also 'a significant challenge…because of misinformation being spread'. The NSW Irrigators' Council explained that misinformation about water policy, including on social media, can foster misunderstanding and lead to policy decisions being based on 'public perception rather than reality, or what best practice arrangements would be'. The risks were particularly elevated, according to the NSW Irrigators' Council, because misinformation was able to spread more easily in the context of a complex policy environment 'and a general poor standard of water literacy by the general public, media, and even some politicians'.
4.19
Misunderstanding of water management, the NSW Irrigators' Council further submitted, has allowed the vilification of irrigation farmers in public discourse despite their work achieving water efficiency. In this way, misinformation 'has very serious mental health impacts on our farmers and communities'.
4.20
The National Irrigators' Council argued that 'there is a clear need to improve public, media and many politicians' knowledge about the plan; this includes the positive stories as well as the real challenges that exist'. Likewise, the NSW Irrigators' Council argued that there should be specific assistance provided to the community to assist it to understand water policy—for example, by investing in public education campaigns or school programs or having a 'voice of truth' to fact check information.
4.21
The Chair of the Basin Community Committee, Mr Phil Duncan, pointed to the need to 'demystify water speak':
There is such a limited number of people who understand water speak, water sharing plans, regional water strategies and WRPs, as well as all the different initiatives that are being implemented across the basin for water efficiency, security and connectivity. We see that as a fundamental way forward.
4.22
However, as Cotton Australia observed, 'the Basin Plan has been developed using information from thousands of papers, and probably hundreds of studies, so the challenge is how best to balance clear explanations with a required level of detail'.
Information dispersal
4.23
There are six governments involved in managing their respective parts of the basin. This has resulted in numerous agencies and departments having responsibility for collecting and producing various components of water information. As such, information is being gathered by different agencies for different purposes. For example, some agencies obtain information for water planning while others use information gathered to conduct compliance or river operations. As a result, not only is information distributed across multiple agencies and jurisdictions, but there are also inconsistencies between the types of information that is captured and produced. A number of inquiry participants pointed to the lack of a single location, such as a website or application, that attempts to consolidate all of the basin's water information in one place for stakeholders to access and use.
4.24
Several previous reviews have already established the need for improved information in the basin. During its inquiry, the committee heard similar evidence. For example, Australian Grape & Wine argued that poor understanding of water management and policy arrangements in the basin is likely due to information sources containing inconsistent or disparate information. Mr Keelty made similar observations:
The reason we're having so much trouble, I think, in the community getting behind what is going on here in terms of policy is that there's too much information available from too many different sources that doesn't match…with the fact that we don't know the total availability of water and we don't know the total availability of allocation in entitlements, so it's very difficult to reconcile how much water there is, who's entitled to take it and what they've taken.
4.25
Mr Keelty argued that there is a need for the creation of a single overarching Commonwealth website which provides robust information and links to state websites where needed:
Get it onto one webpage under whatever head agency—MDBA or however you want to do it, but get it as a dashboard under one roof. At the moment, there are so many pieces of information out there. As an exercise, we asked ourselves: how much water is in Dartmouth Dam? Depending on which website you go to—the Victorian state government, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's (CEWH) website or the MDBA's website—you're going to get a slightly varied response to that. That might be because of the time they uploaded the data. It might be due to a lot of things. But, as you know, it's hard enough for these irrigators and farmers to do their day work, let alone having to contend with this. So I think we haven't made it easy for everybody. You've heard me say it before: we've divided the Murray-Darling Basin into jurisdictional pieces of pie, and we're making it harder for people to operate within that environment instead of easier.
4.26
Cotton Australia argued that all stakeholders should have certainty that all water resources are being managed transparently and within full accordance of the law, and that 'as a nation, we should be working towards a more centralised system of information access and sharing'. Cotton Australia argued that a well-designed single website should have information on the total water resource available on a catchment level, total water held in entitlement accounts (not individual account balances), and water use (updated regularly). In addition, it could be used to access the state water registers, and link to the compliance sites of the jurisdictions.
4.27
The NFF argued that a single authoritative information source should contain accurate information about how much water there is available in the basin, how much water there is under each relevant entitlement, where the water is going, and information about operational losses and evaporation.
4.28
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association submission argued that a central public source of information should show the total water resource available on a catchment level, total aggregated water held in accounts across major categories, and water use that is updated regularly.
4.29
Cotton Australia argued that it is essential that the basin governments invest in systems that enable transparency and compliance while still respecting the business confidentiality of entitlement holders. Likewise, the NFF argued that any public information sharing needs to be at such a level that it does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy or commercial interests of water holders.
4.30
The NSW Irrigators' Council pointed out some of the difficulties with creating a central source of information for the basin:
[T]he difficulties would be bringing together information from so many different agencies across the states, all of whom have different terminology for the same events/items, different metrics for measurement, and different legislation/requirements. A further challenge would be ensuring the website stays up to date given the pace of changes. It would be critical to ensure the information was factual, and that any bias (even implicit) was removed. It would also be essential for the information source to be user-friendly.
4.31
Similarly, the NFF observed that there are considerable challenges in developing a consistent platform due to differences between state policies, measuring systems, and technologies. A single platform would first require basin states to share information and ensure metering across the basin is available and representative. Nonetheless, the NFF argued that there is a role for the Commonwealth Government to facilitate cooperation between basin states to develop a single, authoritative source of information accessible by the public.
4.32
Cotton Australia pointed out that a single source of information requires jurisdictions to agree on what data should be publicly available, and then ensure their systems are capable of reporting that data in a consistent and reliable manner.
4.33
Cotton Australia told the committee that the NSW Water Insights portal (launched mid-2020) has set the standard for how basin states can provide comprehensive and timely water information to the public. The portal allowed water flows to be seen live, what class of licences can access water, and on a daily basis what individual licences can take from the river. Cotton Australia called the portal the 'gold standard', noting that the requisite information is available now while emphasising the importance of clearly packaging that information.
4.34
Likewise, the NSW Irrigators' Council argued that a lot of information is already available but the usability of interfaces could be improved:
Many agencies such as the MDBA and WaterNSW have volumetric information publicly available on their websites. If an individual wishes to access this information, it is available, provided they know where to find it (which can be difficult if unaware). Simply, information access is not so much the issue, compared to the user interface of information. Measures to improve the accessibility, such as through an app with live data could be an area for improvement in terms of usability. An app that allowed individuals to see the volume of water at each point of the river, as well as a breakdown of river flows (e.g. how much was environmental water, how much was an irrigation delivery, how much was for stock and domestic use) at each point along the river may be of interest to people. Links to key information, in one information portal, would be beneficial so people knew where to go. Utilising new and emerging technologies for this purpose could be an interesting area for investigation.
4.35
Mr Keelty advised the committee that he had previously asked the Basin Officials Committee (BOC) 'to look at a single source of truth to help the community understand, trust and have confidence in government,' and in his assessment it might be a simple case of integrating existing databases.
4.36
However, the MDBA was of the view that the information being provided by the basin states is the primary source of information that stakeholders should rely on. Mr Andrew Reynolds, Executive Director, River Management, MDBA, argued that the problem with trying to establish a 'single point of truth' is in the complexity and diversity of information and its uses:
I think the challenge of a single point of truth in such a complex management arrangement is that how you cut the numbers is always going to be a challenge to describe and for people to understand. Inevitably, depending on the questions that get asked, the assembly of the data is done to answer those questions.
4.37
Mr Malcolm Thompson, Deputy Secretary, (then) Department of Agriculture, told the committee that legislating and building a system that provides information to all basin agencies at all times would be an elaborate and potentially unnecessary undertaking.
Technological and other constraints
4.38
Technological, resourcing, physical, or other constraints can inhibit the provision of timely, accurate, and integrated information. As mentioned, some of the currently available information is dispersed across jurisdictions and government information systems and may not be feasibly brought together without significant effort and expenditure. The MDBA explained that 'management of data across jurisdictions and between federal government agencies is highly variable, and technology, format and frequency of measurement differ across different agencies'. There are also many components of water information—for example, quantity, use, ownership, location, quality, availability, as well information relating to the basin's management, such as legislation, policies, and institutions. The basin's climate and weather is also highly variable across both temporal and spatial scales, and the inherent uncertainty of weather and inflow forecasts makes it difficult for water managers to predict availability.
4.39
During this inquiry, the committee heard concerns that the volume of water in the basin has not yet been quantified. Some submitters, such as the Lifeblood Alliance, observed that water accounting is carried out by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), the MDBA and the states; however, Lifeblood Alliance suggested that none of these accounts are able to answer critical questions, such as how much water is being used, who is using it, and where it is being used.
4.40
According to Geoscience Australia, Australia's inability to establish exactly how much water is in the basin at any one time is due to its vast scale and relatively sparse monitoring points by comparison. Satellite images are currently used to supplement on-ground measurements, and while the location of surface water can be determined at any time, satellite technology is unable to provide certainty as to the depth, volume, purpose, and source of water resources.
4.41
According to evidence from Border Rivers Food and Fibre, it is also 'not physically possible to accurately measure the total flows in a flood…only estimates can be made of extensive flows, sometimes over 100km wide across a floodplain'.
4.42
The MDBA acknowledged it is an ongoing challenge for water managers to ensure accurate calculations of water volumes where metering is not possible. This is because the calculations require accurate information regarding the landscape, river system, topography, and land use of the basin. Other accounting challenges include 'separating' water in river and reservoirs into the theoretical constituent parts, such as environmental water, irrigation water, conveyance, and losses. According to the MDBA:
[M]uch of this information does not yet exist to the spatial, volumetric or temporal resolution required to be of use to Basin stakeholders; and there is not yet an effective, affordable and/or robust method to obtain and share such information.
4.43
That said, the MDBA observed that 'standardisation of data management systems would help to improve data sharing arrangements and enable the development of an adaptable and enduring basin scale view of water information'.
Water accounts and registers
4.44
Basin states generally use water accounting systems to monitor and record water credits, use, and ownership. In contrast to water accounts, a 'water register' (or multiple registers in some states) maintains a record of ownership (similar to a lands title register) and a record of trades between water rights holders. The information recorded in the registers often affects the water accounts.
4.45
During its inquiry, the committee received evidence expressing concerns about the accuracy of water accounts and the accessibility of water registers. For example, Lifeblood Alliance raised concerns that there may be differences between the volume of actual water that is flowing to the environment and that which is available on paper. Lifeblood Alliance argued that the models used to calculate water recovery are based on a set of factors and assumptions which are developed by state agencies but are not available for independent review. Lifeblood Alliance was concerned that the calculation of environmental water recovery occurs through a complex and non-transparent modelling process where water recovery has the potential to be made to seem greater through changes to modelling.
4.46
The CEWH herself advised the committee that there needs to be better transparency, analysis, and standardisation of how losses and return flows are accounted for in the basin. Further, there should be investigation into whether more or less water is being lost during transfers than expected.
4.47
Mr Keelty expressed his concern that water calculations can sometimes be misinterpreted, even by water experts. Potentially flawed or misinterpreted calculations, he suggested, were 'impacting transparency, trust and confidence in government agencies and that flows on to ministers, so we need to nail that'.
4.48
The MDBA supplementary submission identified that, despite the MDBA using BoM data for many of its operations, including Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL) accounting, there are differences in the data reported between the National Water Account and the SDL accounts. The BoM and MDBA have been collaborating on the National Water Account Alignment Project which aims to align the two accounting frameworks.
4.49
The ACCC's recent water markets inquiry (as discussed in the previous chapter) highlighted certain issues in relation to the transparency of water registers relevant to this committee's work, and in particular inconsistencies between and deficiencies in the content and operation of state registers. Of note is that the ACCC found that state register data is not timely, provides an insufficient level of detail, each system operates in isolation, and the fragmented nature of data collection may prohibit effective oversight. Additionally, in order to carry out its role in reviewing activities in the Southern Connected Basin, the ACCC had to compile information from several sources which it acknowledged was difficult, time-consuming, and resource intensive. Among other things, the ACCC recommended that improved integration is needed between private exchange platforms, trade approval authorities, water registers, IIO registers, and broader water accounting and information frameworks.
Calls for a water audit
4.50
The committee received several calls for a water audit. For example, Lifeblood Alliance argued that conducting a comprehensive and independent basin-wide audit of water diversions on a valley-by-valley basis would help to improve community trust in governments, identify whether states are complying with SDLs, and inform decision-making. Lifeblood Alliance noted that basin states run their own audit processes, but the lack of checking 'either within or between states' meant these processes did not provide a holistic view of the basin.
4.51
Dr John Williams, Honorary Professor, Water Justice Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, explained that a water accounting system is largely in place, but the coordination of data being entered into it should be checked similar to a financial audit.
4.52
Professor Quentin Grafton, Australian National University, also emphasised the importance of audits occurring on a regular basis, 'because if we don't know what's happened to the water then how can we effectively manage the water?' Professor Grafton noted that the initial audit may not be perfect, 'but the point is we don't have that at the moment, so let's actually deliver it'.
4.53
Ms Maryanne Slattery, Director, Slattery & Johnson, argued for an audit scoped to include not only water availability and consumption but also the numbers for baseline and sustainable diversion limits and water recovery.
4.54
Dr Anne Jensen similarly supported a basin-wide audit of water diversions and consumption, with a register and annual water accounts to be made publicly available. Dr Jensen argued that an audit would assist people to understand where the water goes, how it is shared, what the conditions of take are, and how outcomes are being achieved under the Basin Plan.
4.55
The submission from Dr Jonathon Howard also supported conducting a comprehensive and independent audit of water diversions that could be used by governments to inform policy solutions. Similarly, the Goulburn Valley Environment Group called for an independent audit of environmental water recovery to date, including water availability for the provision of environmental flows, and river flows against plan targets.
4.56
Dr Williams explained that the technology to measure flows and storage and conduct an audit is already available and that jurisdictions have some of the frameworks in place, but that the information needs to be collated:
We have the technology, satellite and LiDAR and a whole lot of things to measure what's in storages, and we can put a lot more flow…It's time we did it so that we have governance of the basin that's based on good documented science…You've got the actual framework for it in bits and pieces, so you're not starting from square one, but you need to have it brought together and you need to have it transparent…
4.57
Professor Grafton argued that some of the work is already underway by Australian researchers, using existing technology, and that a relatively modest audit investment (he estimated $20 million) would provide Australians with a significant gain.
Water models
4.58
The committee heard concerns about the adequacy of water models being used by governments, and how differences between models can produce diverse results. Hydrological models assist the MDBA, for example, to understand how much water is available, and how different conditions and decisions about water management might affect the river system.
4.59
Mr Bob Newman, a retired hydrologist, expressed his concerns regarding the types of hydrological models being used by basin states and the lack of a basin-wide model operated by the MDBA:
What I really want to emphasise is that there is this perception that we have a decent model of the whole of the basin and that we understand the history of take purely through hydrologic measurements, and that's just not true. A lot of the reviews recognise this and put a major emphasis on the uncertainty of the particular model. But that's rarely taken up as a challenge to be dealt with in future decision-making and particularly in a precautionary approach to future decision-making.
4.60
Dr Carmody speculated that discrepancies between independent analysis of water availability and the MDBA may be due to differences in models used:
[T]he MDBA, they do depend on models that are provided to them by the state. In NSW, we rely principally on fairly old, what are called, IQQM models, some of which haven't been fully accredited under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The Barwon-Darling model is an example of that. It was only ever provided with interim accreditation. It seems that those models are not particularly accurate, and it seems that that is particularly the case in the northern Murray-Darling Basin. That could potentially be a reason that there is this discrepancy between what one would expect to see in terms of volumes of water present and what appears to be the case, based on the Wentworth Group's analysis of the issue. It seems that what's required is a basin-wide model that is controlled by the MDBA. I'm led to believe that that would give rise to more accurate estimates of not only how much water is being diverted year on year but also how much is actually left in the river to achieve the objectives of the Basin Plan and Water Act.
4.61
Dr Matthew Colloff, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, likewise explained that the MDBA 'uses a different modelling platform from those of the states. IQQM are not generally considered fit for purpose or best practise for doing water audits.' Dr Colloff argued that introducing a contemporary basin-wide model may have a secondary benefit of facilitating the ability of researchers to conduct water audits.
4.62
The Border Rivers Food and Fibre submission argued that water models are only intended to provide 'ball-park' figures. However, as the National Irrigators' Council submission pointed out, the MDBA should be ensuring that its decision-making is transparent, particularly around modelling processes.
4.63
In a supplementary submission to the inquiry, the MDBA acknowledged that 'more could be done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of information sharing across agencies, for example system modelling'.
Water years
4.64
Transparency and accessibility of water information in the basin may be being undermined by differences in the 'water years' used by government agencies. Differences in water years, as noted during the inquiry, can produce discrepancies in reports and produce confusion in some parts of the community. For example, the MDBA water year runs from May to June, the basin states' water year runs from June to July, and the Snowy Hydro water year runs from May to April.
4.65
Mr Andrew Reynolds, Executive Director, River Management, MDBA, explained the difference in water years enables the MDBA to finalise its assessment of water availability and provide that information to the states, who then use the information to make their allocation announcements for the year beginning 1 July:
The different water years go to the roles that the MDBA plays versus those of the states in making allocation announcements. The MDBA water year runs from May until June. The state water years run from June until July. The basis of that is MDBA is making assessments during its water year—that is, through June, which is the first month of our water year. We're making an assessment of how much water is in the system and is likely to be available to states, which then feeds into their allocation announcements, which start from 1 July. That timing is around us being able to provide information that feeds into the states' timing for their water year. It's been in place for a long time, and that way of managing does make a lot of sense. Otherwise the states' announcements would have to be delayed.
4.66
Ms Helen Vaughan, Deputy Secretary, Water and Catchments, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria (Department of Environment Victoria), acknowledged that it may be confusing for some people who may be reading standalone tables in reports without first looking at the qualifications provided in the report.
4.67
The Chief Executive Officer of the MDBA, Mr Phillip Glyde, acknowledged that basin governments need to collectively address some of the mistrust in the community by explaining the limitations of the data:
I think all jurisdictions have to do more in trying to make this information available in an accessible way, because…there's good reason why there are slight differences in water years and things like that, but that doesn't really help someone who doesn't have the time to look into that. We have to find a way, as a collective of governments, to provide clear information explaining what the limitations are, and I think that's just an ongoing challenge we're going to have. While ever there's uncertainty about the source of data, there'll be people who mistrust the plan and mistrust what people are saying about the implementation and the way in which we administer the water allocations. It's certainly a challenge, and it's something that we're trying to do our best to meet. We're not there yet.
Transparency of water deliberations and decisions
4.68
During its inquiry, the committee heard the transparency of water deliberations and decisions by governments and intergovernmental bodies could be improved. For example, the Ricegrowers' Association of Australia (RGA) wanted more information from governments on river operations and the rationale for decisions that are made:
Another consistent call from us is for a better understanding of river management. It's another point I would like to make on the complexity. We've got the Murrumbidgee system, which is really a tributary, which is managed by WaterNSW. Then you've got the Murray, which is jointly managed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as the river operators. Once it gets to South Australia, the South Australian government has theirs. So there's this complexity and frustration relating back to all of those things.
4.69
The President of the RGA, Mr Robert Massina, argued that there is opportunity to improve the transparency and operation of current interjurisdictional bodies:
The system of decision-making through the ministerial council and the BOC seems to be incredibly slow, lacks transparency, provides very little opportunity for community input and is at the mercy of intergovernmental politics.'
4.70
Mr Keelty argued that there should be greater insight provided to the community into the accounting and deliberations of government agencies regarding the availability and allocation of water in a given year. Likewise, Mr Chris Brooks, Chair, Southern Riverina Irrigators, contended that explanations for flows and losses that happen in the river system were inadequate and lacking transparency.
4.71
The NSW Minister for Water, the Hon Melinda Pavey MP, advised the committee that while there had been some progress in improving transparency at the ministerial level, such as tabling agendas and minutes of the Murray‑Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MINCO) meetings, greater transparency is needed. Minister Pavey argued that the reporting of the BOC should be public:
We need to provide more transparency around those outcomes and outcomes being sought by the Water Act 2007. Transparency around what happened to the water once it went across the South Australian border was so bad that at the start of the 2019-20 water year the MINCO requested that South Australia provide the BOC with quarterly reports on water use and river flows for environmental and consumptive purposes between the South Australian border and the Lower Lakes. The Ministerial Council has since requested that reporting of BOC be replaced with public reporting...
4.72
The National Irrigators' Council voiced its support for the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission regarding the need for greater transparency and community input to the BOC.
4.73
Mrs Rachel Kelly, Policy Manager, RGA, argued that the BOC should ensure 'a greater level of transparency provided to the public about what the decision-making process is and what the key matters for consideration by the BOC are'.
4.74
Ms Helen Vaughan, Department of Environment Victoria, explained there were several reasons why the BOC was unable to provide all of its materials to the public:
I think one is that our role is very much about…the operations of the river, and the other is about advising ministers and having those without-prejudice policy discussions. Often within BOC we deal with market-sensitive information, so not all of the materials from our meetings are able to be published for that reason. It's important that we really maintain that integrity of the water market and not benefit some users over others. But also we want to ensure that we have the space for those very robust discussions, which is not necessarily helpful in the public arena.
4.75
Dr Jensen argued that there has not been enough clear explanation of how the water is being shared, why some irrigators have no allocation, and who made the relevant decisions. Dr Jensen argued that basin governments need to improve their communication to avoid perpetuating misconceptions in the community, for example, by adequately explaining why and how water is being shared with other states.
Initiatives to improve information and transparency in the basin
4.76
The MDBA's submission to the inquiry noted that the basin is an inherently complex system and a vast amount of information exists regarding its condition and management. It pointed out that the provision of 'accessible, understandable, timely, relevant and credible' information can mean different things to different stakeholders, and that simply providing more and more information would not necessarily achieve greater transparency.
4.77
However, the MDBA acknowledged that water managers and stakeholders would both benefit from the development of new methods to obtain relevant, open and timely information. The MDBA advised that basin governments are working to increase the consistency, integration and availability of basin information to improve transparency and meet stakeholder needs. While there have been some improvements, the MDBA conceded that more could be done to create an effective enabling environment for stakeholders.
4.78
The MDBA has been working closely with the basin states, BoM, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office and other stakeholders to explore opportunities for improving water information gathering across governments, to provide water users and communities with more consistent and accessible information.
4.79
At the time of the committee's inquiry, several transparency initiatives to improve the availability, accessibility, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of national water information were being implemented by the Commonwealth. These include a new water information platform, a real-time water information portal, the hydrometric networks and remote funding program, and the northern basin information portal, discussed below.
Water information platform
4.80
In September 2020, the Commonwealth committed $5.4 million to establish a single-source water information platform in an effort to bring together water information from various sources. The platform is intended to be delivered by mid-2024. The Department of Agriculture, the MDBA, and BoM are currently undertaking research to better understand user needs.
4.81
The platform aims to provide a coherent entry point for users trying to access data that is currently spread across state and Commonwealth web portals. This includes information on stream flows, water storage, and trade information available through:
the Australian Water Resources Information System (AWRIS) and BOM's complementary water products and services;
state water agencies websites;
the $5 million near real-time information portal which BOM is funded to deliver by the end of 2022 (explained below);
data collected by improved networks and remote sensing technology under the $34.7 million hydrometric networks and remote sensing program for the northern Basin which is to be delivered by June 2023; and
a range of other potential sources being explored as a part of the work.
Real-time water information portal
4.82
The BoM is also delivering a near real-time portal which will provide information on water availability in the basin. The portal aims to standardise, generate and combine data from range of sources including state agencies, dam operators, the MDBA and the CEWH and present it in a consistent format that users can understand and use more easily. It is expected to improve the availability and timeliness of much of the existing BOM water data.
4.83
The first phase of BoM's portal initiative will deliver fortnightly PDF-based reports of Murray-Darling Basin catchments throughout 2019-20 and 2020-21. The second phase aims to transition these during 2021-22 into a more interactive, near real-time, web-based information portal. The portal will provide relevant information at the river reach and individual storage scale that users can aggregate to catchment and basin scales. According to the Department of Agriculture, providing access to the portal through the single source water information platform will ensure that there is centralised access to the water information tool.
4.84
In response to questions on notice from the committee, BoM explained that its new portal will provide greater transparency of water allocation, trade and management within the basin. It will achieve this by providing a single point for accessing information from all basin states using consistent parameters described using consistent criteria. Data on water availability, water status, water forecasts, water markets and water trade will be made available at a significantly higher spatial and temporal resolution than previously, with latency of days rather than months. Further, the portal will provide stakeholders with tools to integrate and analyse data from disparate data categories (for example, physical and economic), a function that has hitherto been discouraged by the onerousness of the task. Together, these features will make it easy for stakeholders to compare the physical and market characteristics of one point in the basin with those of another point in the basin, with a timeliness that enables active and connected management of basin water and water-dependent resources.
4.85
According to BoM, the content and format of the data presented on the new portal will be determined via consultation with stakeholders. Feedback will be sought from water licence holders, water brokers, commercial water users, recreational users, regional observers, community advocates (environmental, local government, business); Indigenous peoples, and Commonwealth and state government agencies. Initial stakeholder research is expected to be completed by February 2021. Engagement with stakeholders is scheduled to continue over the three years of the project via user testing of each version of the website and related water literacy activities.
4.86
At the committee's hearing in February 2021, officials from BoM explained that in designing the portal, BoM is seeking to identify where it can generate the most value by establishing where there are common needs across customers that are not being met, rather than duplicating existing services:
For example, for an irrigator in NSW who can currently log into WaterNSW and access their account and allocation data, we won't seek to duplicate that service, but, where we're engaging with water information users who currently have significant questions they can't answer through existing services, that's where we're aiming to fill the gap. Particularly, again as a national agency, we're aiming to provide the picture of how water moves at a basin scale across state borders and provide that whole-of-basin picture…I suspect that, in some states, water users themselves will continue to get that deep, detailed account information from the water provider in their state, while we will attempt to provide that basin-wide perspective.
4.87
The committee heard that the first round of user-centred research occurred in December 2020 and January 2021 with a small but geographically and user-type diverse group. This feedback, the committee was advised, would enable the first basic portal to be released in mid-2021. BoM intends to conduct sprints of customer engagement and enhancement of the portal to 2023 by allowing stakeholders to test the system and then incorporating that feedback over the next two and half years.
4.88
At its February 2021 hearing, the committee explored whether, for storages which are utilised by multiple states, there is an opportunity for BoM to provide a breakdown of how much of the water in a particular storage belongs to each state. This information is currently only produced in arrears by the MDBA. Officials from BoM advised that if this sort of information were to be requested as part of the improvement project being undertaken with stakeholders, then it would be incorporated into the new Murray-Darling website.
4.89
Based on initial information, officials from the BoM explained that water licence holders' requirements relate to managing individual water availability, water price, and participation in the market. Basin, Indigenous, and non-Indigenous communities, meanwhile, are seeking to understand how water flows through the landscape, who manages it and who's responsible for different things.
4.90
Although BoM is tasked with tracking water storages, it is only responsible for capturing broad changes and trends. BoM is restricted to collecting data on public dams which are bigger than one gigalitre and is prohibited from publishing data that shows an individual's water use.
4.91
At its February 2021 hearing, the committee heard that BoM will work with the department to identify whether the platform and the portal being created will meet the needs of users or whether additional projects might be required.
Hydrometric Networks and Remote Funding Program
4.92
The third information initiative being funded by the Commonwealth aims to improve data collection in the northern basin through the rollout of hydrometric and remote sensing technology in northern NSW and Queensland. The program is being administered by the Department of Agriculture; however, project delivery involves various government agencies, including the MDBA, BoM, Geoscience Australia, the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Data collected through the initiative will be available for incorporation into the single source water information platform.
4.93
The Commonwealth committed $35 million to these four projects in response to the outcomes of the MDBA's 2017 Water Compliance Review and the agreed actions under the 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Compliance Compact.
Northern basin information portal
4.94
According to the MDBA's website, a northern basin information portal will also be developed to provide increased transparency of up-to-date water information to the public. While initially northern basin-focused, it is anticipated that in the long-term, other basin states may wish to collaborate in working together to enhance water monitoring and information for the whole of the Murray–Darling Basin. According to the 14 December 2020 joint media release from the Commonwealth, NSW and Queensland water ministers, the NSW and Queensland governments are leading the 'development of an online accounting and reporting site for water licence holders and compliance officers in those states'.
Committee view and recommendations
4.95
The committee received evidence from a range of stakeholders that complexity in the legislation, policies, and institutional landscape in relation to the Basin Plan is undermining transparency and adequacy of information. Complexity can be a significant barrier for stakeholders to meaningfully engage in discussions about water management. This is likely being compounded by poor water literacy in the community, some misinformation, and insufficient communication by government agencies.
4.96
The committee considers that its recommendation from Chapter 2–Governance—to build a roadmap of basin governance for each aspect of the Basin Plan which clarifies decision-making and accountability between governments and agencies, will go some way in addressing many transparency concerns.
4.97
The committee heard concerns that the reasons behind why particular decisions are made by governments are not always transparent or timely. The committee received calls for better communication from governments on why and how water is shared between states, the division of responsibility between governments on river operations, accounting methods being used, availability and allocation of water in a given year, and explanations for flows and losses in particular river systems.
4.98
The committee encourages the Australian Government to work with basin states to provide quality information on these types of government policies and activities in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and ensure it is in plain English to meet the needs of diverse stakeholders.
4.99
Technological constraints are inhibiting transparency and preventing government efforts to improve adequacy of information. Information is dispersed across jurisdictions and it is difficult to quantify volumes of water in parts of the basin. There are limits to what information can be provided by governments in an economic and effective way.
4.100
The committee acknowledges the significant steps that have been taken by the Australian Government in recent years to improve transparency relating to the Basin Plan. These include developing a new water information platform to bring information from various sources together by mid-2024; a near real-time water information portal being delivered by the BoM by the end of 2022; and improving hydrometric networks and remote sensing technology in the northern basin by 2023. The committee also notes technological change could, and likely will, continue to improve the quality and quantity of information available in real time.
4.101
The committee heard stakeholders' concerns that government water accounts may not accurately reflect the reality of water in the landscape. Evidence indicates that distribution of information across jurisdictions, and inconsistencies in accounting methods and modelling may also be producing diverse results. The need for six governments to be involved in managing the basin, combined with significant and numerous water reforms being implemented over several decades, is also likely to be contributing to information concerns. The committee received evidence that even experts can sometimes misinterpret calculations, and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder herself acknowledged that there needs to be investigation into whether more or less water is being lost during transfers than expected. The committee understands that jurisdictions already have the frameworks in place to facilitate a basin-wide audit, but that the information needs to be collated and analysed.
4.102
The committee is uncertain whether independent audits of states' and Commonwealth water accounts are occurring, and the degree to which they enable a holistic view of the reality of water in the basin as a whole. The committee agrees that commissioning an independent audit of the underlying process of governments' water accounts to provide a basin-wide perspective will improve community confidence in the basin's management and assist to inform government decision-making.
4.103
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with basin states to commission an independent basin-wide audit of the processes and systems underlying water accounts to identify whether the accounts currently enable a holistic view of the reality of water in the Murray-Darling basin.
Next chapter
4.104
The following chapter explores compliance and enforcement issues arising from the basin's multijurisdictional management arrangements.