Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014.

In 2004, the Howard government established the National Water Commission, or NWC, as part of the National Water Initiative—the national plan for sustainable water use in Australia—to ensure that communities and industry have a reliable water supply, while protecting the health of our water systems. It was set up in recognition of the need for national water leadership to help address serious challenges. These included drought and climate change, water's role in securing Australia's economic and environmental future, the value of water for recreation and tourism, the need to advance the sustainable use of water and the impacts of fast-growing cities on water availability and delivery.

Labor contends that these issues are just as important today as they were in 2004. We believe this bill will create a huge gap in the area of national water oversight and will threaten ongoing water reform for very little gain. I was the deputy chair of the inquiry into this bill through the Environment and Communications Committee. The inquiry received 32 submissions from a range of stakeholders, experts, government bodies and interested individuals. Many submissions pointed out Australia's excellent international reputation for taking early, decisive action in the area of water reform. This was particularly evident in the case of the millennium drought, which resulted in large portions of the country being drought declared and which saw the federal government provide $4.5 billion in assistance.

On this issue, the OECD's 2012 report entitled Meeting the water reform challenge said:

… some countries have been at the cutting edge of water policy innovation and have developed sophisticated policy frameworks to address water challenges.

Australia, for example, has had a long period of water policy reform …

There is little doubt that the National Water Commission played an important role in this proud history, and to abolish it now would be short-sighted to say the least. Not one sector of our economy could survive if we did not have secure, safe and strategically managed water supplies. Our economic, environmental and personal health and, indeed, the stability of our society, relies on the security and strategic allocation of water resources.

It has been said that water is either an A-level issue or a Z-level issue. That is to say that in times of drought, or when concerns about scarcity or pollution arise, water quickly shoots to the top of the political and media agendas. However, a little while after the crisis passes, complacency can set in and water can slip off the policy radar. Attention wanes and resources are allocated to other issues. But we need to recognise that it is the solid, ongoing reform work that is done during 'Z' times that ensures that 'A' times do not hit or, if they do, that we are better equipped to respond to them. To cut funding to vital water reform institutions just because we have had a few good years of rain is short-sighted to say the least. If we do not maintain resources now, we will force a hastily-invoked crisis response when water challenges inevitably arise in the future.

Submitters to the inquiry told the committee how crucial the NWC has been to the progress that has been made so far on the National Water Initiative. Again and again, the committee heard concerns for the future of this important reform if the NWC is lost. In fact, it was hard to find any criticism of the NWC in the submissions.

Here are just a few comments to give you an idea of the regard held for the commission and the critical role it has played in our water management arrangements. Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, Prof. Richard Kingsford said:

The National Water Commission has performed and excellent service in coordinating water reform in Australia, as an independent organisation at arm’s length of state and Federal governments.

Environs Kimberley said in their submission:

The importance of the Commission’s role in providing independent expert advice on matters of national water reform and assessing and monitoring the National Water Initiative (NWI) cannot be overstated.

The Arid Lands Environment Centre said:

The National Water Initiative has provided critical support for national decision-making on issues related to water management. The long-term vision and independence of the Commission has provided Australia with a world class national water policy framework that has supported a holistic approach to water management and water reform.

Stormwater Qld said:

The National Water Initiative, facilitated by the National Water Commission (NWC), provides the opportunity to augment the economically, socially and environmentally efficient management of water in Australia. We believe the NWC has played an important role in advancing total water cycle management and water sensitive urban design in Australia.

The Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre said:

There has been substantial technical innovation and reform by industry and state governments in meeting urban water needs across Australia in recent years, in large part driven by the challenges of changing climate conditions and drought. We believe that these initiatives were greatly assisted by the national focus that resulted from the establishment of the National Water Commission (NWC) in 2004 and the development of the National Water Initiative (NWI).

These words all echo the findings of the independent COAG review into the NWC, which was undertaken in 2011. The report of the review recognises the importance of the NWC in Australia's strategic water reform arrangements when it says:

Having a single entity responsible for monitoring, audit and assessment, and knowledge leadership therefore enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of each of the individual activities. This will become even more important in the future as reforms become more difficult.

Which begs the question: if the vast majority of stakeholders rate the work of the commission so highly, then why is the government persisting with its abolition?

The main argument used by the government to justify the actions of the National Water Commission is that it will save money. However, as the Australian Conservation Foundation pointed out in their submission to the inquiry 'the potential savings represent less than 0.0001 per cent of our annual budget'. Surely the care and management of our most precious national resource is worth that much. We also need to look at what we stand to lose with the savings touted by those opposite. On this matter Stormwater Queensland said:

We believe the economic costs of abolishing the [National Water Commission], in terms of inefficient water management, are likely to far outweigh that cost.

The government has said the key functions of the National Water Commission will be carried over to other bodies including ABARES, the Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment. However, submitters to the inquiry contradict this view. The submissions from the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association pointed out that the bill transfers only two statutory functions to the Productivity Commission. Similarly, the Australian Conservation Foundation raised concerns in their submission that a number of legislative policy advice functions have not been transferred in the new arrangements.

Another factor to consider is resourcing. We know that the National Water Commission had 41 staff before the budget, but questioning during the hearing revealed that only 12 or 13 of these staff will transfer to the department. Surely, the government cannot really expect us to believe resources can be cut by two-thirds with no loss of output, stringency or depth. We will need to remember that this situation can only be exacerbated by the broad staff cuts that are currently being inflicted on the Public Service. The reality is that the government's argument about cost savings does not stack up. The committee has been told that in fact the opposite is true. We simply cannot afford to drop the ball on water reform now.

Another argument the government has used in its attempt to axe the NWC is that, in the words of Senator Birmingham, 'much of the commission's reform work has already been done'. However, Senator Birmingham's statement is contradicted by the vast majority of expert advice. In fact, the COAG review I mentioned earlier also had a bit to say about the state of water reform in Australia when it said:

The NWI remains a relevant and active reform agenda supported by most stakeholders.

It added:

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 … more important in the future.

Submitters to the inquiry also concurred with this perspective. On this issue, the Australian Conservation Foundation said:

National water reform, as envisaged under the National Water Initiative is a long term journey. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go, particularly within the context of changes to the use of water resources in northern Australia.

Submissions from the Australian Water Association, the Water Services Association of Australia and Konfluence noted that the reasons that the Howard government established the NWC are just as relevant today as they were 10 years ago. They also pointed out that a number of new challenges have arisen to make the task even more complex. These include the role of water management in energy production, generation and use of energy in water management, the potential alignment of water, energy and waste services at a retail level, the special issue of water management in northern Australia and balancing the creation of long-lived assets such as desalination plants against short-term affordability issues.

All three submissions also acknowledged the very contemporary issue of water management in the resources sector, especially coal seam gas. And all three submissions echoed the concerns of many when they said that meeting these challenges will be harder 'without national leadership' and could result in 'inferior outcomes for customers, industry and the environment'. The Australian Water Association also saw the need for specific reforms in the areas of water pricing, trading and infrastructure as well as long-term sustainability in urban and rural water use.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists was also very specific in its analysis of the work still to be done and provided the inquiry with a long list of areas where reform is still needed. These included the treatment of extreme events in water plans, improvement and expansion of water markets, integrated management of surface and groundwater, identification of over-allocated systems, environmental watering monitoring, urban and rural water pricing and the impacts of water planning decisions for Indigenous communities. So we can see that there is a clear conflict between the government's claims that reform work is largely complete and the expert testimony that the water reform journey has just begun. Unlike this government, Labor is willing to listen to the experts. And unlike this government, we are not willing to compromise Australia's ability to respond to the ongoing challenges of water reform.

Another concern shared by many of the submitters to the inquiry was that the abolition of the NWC would see a loss of independent oversight of Australia's water arrangements and the National Water Initiative. Submitters recognised the value of an independent body that can provide frank and fearless advice to governments and maintain a long-term perspective that transcends election cycles. On this issue, Environment Centre NT submitted:

Independent Federal oversight of the NWI is required to ensure water resources are far less likely to become depleted, that resource allocation decisions are made under a fair, transparent and informed process.

Importantly, research conducted and funded by the NWC has also been critical to building well-informed decision-making processes around water resource allocation and management.

Many submitters took particular note of the important role the NWC has played in overseeing the actions of the states, which are largely responsible for implementing actions within the National Water Initiative. On this matter, University of New South Wales's Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, Professor Richard Kingsford, raised concerns about the potential for 'a loss of engagement and accountability of the states and what they are doing'. He went on to say, 'That is my biggest concern about the National Water Initiative'. Interestingly, it was not that long ago that those opposite seemed to agree. In fact, in 2012 Senator Simon Birmingham said the National Water Commission's:

… role in holding the states and the Commonwealth to account for actually delivering on water reform is [vital].

Clearly, the Abbott government is no longer concerned about ensuring accountability, but Labor are, and this is yet another reason we will be opposing this bill.

Another big concern the committee heard with the abolition of the NWC is the enormous amount of knowledge and expertise that we stand to lose. Currently, the National Water Commission Act specifies the areas of high level expertise required by commissioners for appointment, including water resource management; freshwater ecology or hydrology; resource economics; public sector governance; and the audit, evaluation or implementation of programs relating to natural resource management.

The National Farmers Federation called for this expertise requirement to be maintained in the transfer of National Water Commission functions to the Productivity Commission. Sadly, if this bill proceeds, this will not happen and Australia will lose this incredible bank of knowledge and experience. Under questioning, the Productivity Commission conceded that this expertise does not exist within the organisation and would have to be hired in on a needs basis. This is very different from having ongoing in-house expertise that can inform every element of water reform, and Labor does not believe that it is sufficient.

Labor are concerned that if the bill proceeds, Australia will lose this expertise and with it the ability to make the best decisions based on the latest scientific information. As part of this bill, responsibility for assessing progress on the National Water Initiative and for auditing of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as well as monitoring water markets and payments to Basin states would transfer to the Productivity Commission. While no-one would suggest that the Productivity Commission is not an excellent and laudable institution, the inquiry heard many concerns that the NWC role in stakeholder engagement and consultation would be lost if the bill proceeds. Many submitters lauded the success of the NWC's coordination and consultative processes, which have been performed through its stakeholder reference group. And many voiced concerns that the Productivity Commission is not equipped to take on this type of ongoing consultation and engagement.

In this regard, the National Farmers Federation recommended that the Productivity Commission institute a stakeholder reference panel, but, unfortunately, this option is not on the table. Labor is persuaded by the arguments of the NFF and other submitters that the NWC's consultative role is vital and that it will not adequately be supported in the new arrangements.

Another commonly voiced concern with the transfer of functions to the Productivity Commission is that of focus. Many were worried that the Productivity Commission's prime focus on economic factors would see the vitally important social and environmental factors reduced to a lower priority. The National Farmers Federation were particularly concerned about this and recommended in their submission that the Productivity Commission should be required to adopt a triple bottom-line approach to their proposed water functions. Realistically, however, this change will not be made with this bill, and if it is passed the concerns of the NFF will still stand.

One of the only submitters that fully supported the government's proposed abolition of the NWC and associated arrangements was the National Irrigators Council. Unfortunately, many of the concerns raised by this council in its submission actually will not be addressed by this bill. Issues raised are unlikely to be affected at all by the abolition of the National Water Commission.

Labor stand in unity with the vast majority of submitters to the inquiry into this bill that a national, coordinated approach to water reform is needed to deliver on the National Water Initiative. We believe that the National Water Commission provides valuable, frank and independent advice to governments of all persuasions across jurisdictions. We believe that the NWC's level of expertise and role in bringing stakeholders together cannot be lost. We believe the NWC has a proven track record for promoting the need for and benefits of ongoing water reform, and ensuring plans are made to secure Australia's economic future.

We believe this plan threatens the stability, coherence and accountability of Australia's water reform and puts it at serious risk of falling off the agenda entirely. We do not believe that the very small annual saving goes anywhere near compensating the losses that this bill will create in terms of expertise and the fulfilment of other functions. We also believe that for such a small saving, we simply cannot risk the possibility that we will drop the ball on water reform.

Clearly, this amount of money is negligible when compared to the future of water in this country. And, clearly, when this government is willing to spend billions of dollars to pay millionaires to have babies, we can see some seriously twisted priorities at play. As in so many areas, the statements of this government are at a variance with the experts who deal with this issue every day of their professional lives. Again, this government is ignoring the advice of scientists and experts in— (Time expired)