The context in which the Water Act operates has evolved considerably since its commencement. National water information arrangements are more developed, Commonwealth institutions and regulatory functions are well established, State and Territory water planning and entitlement systems have continued to mature, and the broader intergovernmental water policy landscape has become increasingly complex. Within the Basin, SDLs are established and operational, WRPs now provide the legal basis for implementation across most water areas, and substantial environmental water holdings have been accumulated. This Review must recognise these developments and consider what is required of the Act moving forward.
The central question for this Review is therefore whether the Water Act remains fit-for-purpose and appropriately calibrated for the next phase of water management. Nationally, this requires consideration of whether the Act’s Objectives are being achieved, whether Commonwealth functions remain effective and proportionate, whether institutional arrangements are efficient and accountable, and whether the legislation continues to support balance between social, economic, and environmental outcomes.
Within the Basin, the focus must now shift toward smarter management and achieving demonstrable environmental outcomes and away from the ‘just add water’ mentality that has plagued implementation and communities. This means moving beyond further buybacks and prioritising complementary measures that address the underlying drivers of environmental degradation and underperformance (more below). We seek $2.0 billion over four-years to support implementation.
A central Object of the Water Act is to optimise economic, social, and environmental outcomes arising from the use and management of Basin water resources. It is our view that Object 3(c) has not been achieved. The experience of Basin communities is that environmental objectives have taken precedence while social and economic outcomes have received little to no direct attention or equivalency, and in many cases, treated as an afterthought once policy settings have already been determined. This imbalance is evident in the heavy reliance on water recovery volumes as a measurable proxy for environmental progress, while the significant consequences for productive capacity, local employment, community resilience, and agricultural production have been addressed only after decisions have been made through mitigation or adjustment programs that have themselves experienced significant implementation deficiencies. This does not represent optimisation in any meaningful sense of the term.
NFF’s full submission can be found here.