I would like to start by acknowledging that we meet today on the traditional lands of the Kamilaroi/Gamilaroi/Gomeroi people. I recognise their continuing connection to this land, this land I spent around 16 years of my childhood growing up on and pay my respects to Elders past and present, I extend that respect to any Aboriginal people present here today. I also acknowledge all Traditional Owners throughout the lands and waterways of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Members, colleagues, and distinguished guests – good morning. It’s terrific to be back in my formative home of Tamworth. It’s equally terrific to be a part of this milestone for the association – its 80th national conference.

I was away last year but ably represented by my Deputy Daniel Blacker during the MDA conference in Murray Bridge, so it’s indeed great to be here among some familiar faces, and I look forward to meeting some of the new faces among you during our time in the great city of Tamworth – along the banks of the mighty Peel River and close to my childhood playground the Cockburn.

The topic of this conference, "The future of Water Security", isn’t something I can speak directly to in my role as the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. In reality, the role the IGWC plays in national water security is insignificant. What is not insignificant – is the role we play as a regulator of those -- who directly or indirectly -- have legislated obligations in the water security space. In many ways, as the Inspector-General of Water Compliance, I am the ‘watcher of the watchers.’

And while those operators and regulators have an accountability role for water security – my role is to hold them to account for their day-to-day legislated governance, behaviours, and practices. This accountability doesn’t just rest with the operators of our waterways, it also rests with the regulatory and policy bodies across state and Commonwealth governments. So, while you’ll hear much about water security throughout these few days, I’d like to spend some time talking to you about ‘accountability’, and how accountability in our world – ‘the world of water regulation in Australia’ – is also protecting trust, confidence and integrity.

Many of you may have been at, or heard about the speech I delivered at River Reflections in Mildura back in 2022. More recently, you may have heard the follow-up to that speech at last month’s River Reflections 2024 in Albury. I won’t revisit already covered ground, but I simply want to highlight what I’ve previously stated on the public record regarding accountability:

• If through our work I see wrong-doing, I will call it out. 
• If I find evidence that laws have been broken, I’ll use my audit, investigation, and enforcement powers against offenders. 
• If I see integrity, performance, or implementation failures, I can use my inquiry powers to improve performance and implementation.

Accountability is a fundamental aspect of human behaviour. Let’s briefly look at the psychology of accountability to put what I’m going to talk about into some context.

When people avoid being accountable, a conscious decision is made not to do something. And then another decision is made to downplay the importance of not following through. Doing this repeatedly develops a habit or a culture if you like of convincing ourselves that not doing what we say we will do has no real consequence. And that is a very bad habit to have. This can be fatal for integrity and trust.

Non-compliance must equal consequence. No consequence breeds disincentive, disincentive destroys trust.

Within the context of the Water Act, there is consequence for non-compliance. It’s enforcement. We are the enforcement agency.

During Senate Estimates in February 2023, there was a question raised about how much Commonwealth money has been put aside for implementing the Basin Plan, including how much of that $13 billion has been spent and what was left?  A good question I thought. The answer given to the Senate was a brief answer that didn’t come with a lot of detail. I thought to myself, if I was a member of the public – was the response adequately transparent?  As a member of the public, could I take a lot of comfort that there was adequate trust and transparency in what was essentially a $13 billion question?

So, I undertook a transparency review to determine whether indeed a member of the public could see where the $13 billion has been spent or committed. It’s fair to say and expect - with the responsibility of spending $13 billion comes a lot of accountability.

Like I did in the May 2023 Senate Estimates hearings, I must stress that this review used only publicly available information, such as budget statements and annual reports. I did not seek to use, nor did I use, any of my oversight or inquiry powers – both of which are afforded to me as the independent Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The intention of this review was not aimed at uncovering instances of maladministration or wrongdoing, but simply to establish whether or not an everyday member of community could see where their money -- $13 billion of it -- had gone. The Australian public, in my view, had the right to know the answer to a $13 billion accountability question. For me, the answer was very (very) underwhelming and raised more questions than there were answers for.

The result of this 2023 accountability exercise was me including it in my public submission to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into Basin Plan implementation. That submission very much focussed on a number of areas, including accountability, and the transparency of the allocation and spending of Australian taxpayer money on Basin Plan reform funding. I also want to add that the central agency responsible for administering the $13 billion, the federal Department of Climate, Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) also started publishing program level financial information for the first time. Until then, program details had been far and few between. When people hear figures like $13 billion tossed around in media stories, it can be hard to comprehend – it becomes ‘funny money’. The everyday person finds it hard to get their head around that many zeros, or what that actually translates to in tangible ‘things’ that effect everyday life for mums and dads, the elderly, or those most vulnerable in your communities across your local government areas.

In the water space, we often hear in reporting – water volume being compared to things like, “that’s equivalent to 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools”. Or the media’s favourite ‘go to’, “that’s the size of four Sydney harbours”. Even that can be a bit hard to relate to for many people.

But to audiences like you, and the many people you serve in your local council and regional communities, tangible everyday things like, a new school. A new hospital, more police, a cancer treatment centre, improved infrastructure like water treatment plants, sporting centres or a cultural centre are things your communities easily relate to.

Now, as a former local member, minister and deputy premier in state government, I get it and know all too well how important things like I’ve just mentioned are to local communities. Let me take Tamworth for example. The $211 million upgrades to the Tamworth Hospital in 2016 delivered to the community additional medical, surgical and inpatient beds, day surgery unit, paediatrics unit, maternity, birthing suite and special care nursery, emergency resuscitation bay, renal dialysis unit, oral health unit, operating suite and recovery spaces, cardiac catheterisation laboratory, medical imaging, pharmacy, nuclear medicine, ambulatory care centre, improved staff amenities, and a helipad. To the community, these are tangible $211 million things they can see, can touch, can use, can relate to life impacting tangibles and understand.

In the water context, when looking at an enormous figure like $13 billion, $180 million for the Northern Basin Toolkit might look like a ‘small program’. I’ve just given an example of what impact $211 million can have on a community. 

Accountability for the expenditure of public money rests with those agencies and entities charged -- and trusted -- with its management, allocation, distribution, and remittance. For Commonwealth agencies and entities, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act (2013), or PGPA, has five general duties that public servants – of all levels (from the most junior staff to the boss – the Secretary of a department) – must exercise:

1. A duty of care and diligence.
2. A duty to act in good faith and for a proper purpose.
3. A duty in relation to use of position. 
4. A duty in relation to use of information.
5. A duty to disclose interests.

As a statutory office holder with oversight, monitoring, regulatory functions and powers, I commit to:

• Deliver trust and transparency around the management of Murray-Darling Basin water resources.
• Ensure the highest standard of accountability for all involved in the use and management of Basin resources, including state and Commonwealth agencies.
• Engage with the community on management of Basin resources.

So, as I worked through the exercise of using public available materials to follow where $13 billion has been distributed and spent, I have started to form a view. And that is, accountability in regard Basin Plan implementation and work being done is worth looking into.

Through our engagement and community sentiment research work, communities were telling me trust and confidence across the Basin was waning. The community had concerns about aspects of basin Plan implementation through programs, projects, and priorities. I have a responsibility under the Act to deliver trust and transparency around the management of Murray-Darling Basin water resources. Equally, I also have a legislated responsibility to ensure the highest standard of accountability for all involved in the use and management of Basin resources.

A naturally curious person – with a long policing history behind me – my antenna immediately signalled it was very much going into overdrive. There was much I could do, much that needed to be done - things I am empowered and authorised to do but that takes money and resources. At the time, much like water, both money and resources were finite. That was until the May 2024 Federal Budget. The minister and government listened to what I was telling them regarding what I was hearing from Basin communities. The end result – an additional investment of $7.15 million each year over four years to my budget to ensure we could do what we were legislated to do, expected to do, and needed to do. We are now properly funded and resourced to exercise the powers afforded to this independent role: oversight, inquiry, audit, compliance and enforcement…

The Inspector-General of Water Compliance’s immediate future operating environment will be very different. For example, if a project, programme or infrastructure somewhere in the Basin with millions of tax payers dollars allocated to it has not been delivered and is years overdue, it warrants a closer look. My interest in having a closer look may very well be motivated by the community continuously telling me something isn’t right and it is worth a look. My point - if an agency or entity has the Basin Plan accountability and task of delivering that outcome, but over consecutive years has failed to deliver – and the community continues raising red flags, I feel very motivated  to act. How might I act? It is reasonable to expect that now I am funded to do so, I may very well use my inquiry powers.

Similarly, if an agency or entity has not met the standard of accountability, not exercised good governance, failed to meet legislated requirements in the use and management of Basin resources, I might use my audit and or investigation powers to look further into matters.

Since the office supporting me was stood-up in 2021, there has been some concern across the Basin that because my office sits within a Commonwealth agency, we might not be so inclined to look at issues or concerns close to home… by way of background, I commissioned an independent audit into the department (DCCEEW) in response to a matter that was formerly raised with my office… that audit is currently in the final stages of being prepared for release, and there’ll be more on that in the coming weeks… the community can take comfort, as an independent statutory officer, if there’s an issue or concern raised – I will call it out.

I want to address this a little further, especially in the current context after the Australian Government last year commissioned an independent review of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. Those findings and recommendations have been received, and responded to, by the government in June 2024. 

The independent review by Mr Peter Harris AO made 11 recommendations and eight observations. The Australian Government has agreed or agreed in principle to eight of the 11 recommendations, with a number of these recommendations implemented as part of the 2024-25 Budget. A key recommendation of the review was, in summary, for the IGWC to establish its own in-house legal counsel to advise the Inspector-General – separate from any legal advice or counsel given from the department… this is critical, particularly where there was a clear conflict in providing legal advice that may affect the department. This goes to something I am on the public record for saying early in my tenure as the Inspector-General – we cannot have people or agencies marking their own homework. For the record, we are in the early stages of establishing and recruiting that independent in-house legal counsel.

Also in the review, Mr Harris’ recommendation 3.3, in summary, calls for the IGWC to be a separate non-corporate Commonwealth entity with those employees assisting me – public servants from the department – to no longer be employees of the department… in a nutshell – a standalone, fully independent agency. In response, the government ‘noted’ the recommendation by saying – quote: “Matters of governance and organisational structure will require further analysis and will be considered, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, as part of the statutory review of the Water Act.” This recommendation is crystal clear to me, needs little further analysis and hard to defend not adopting, especially since it exists with other Inspector-Generals’ structures.

As I said, there were 11 recommendations and eight observations in the independent review of the IGWC.

Basin states and communities can absolutely take a high level of trust and confidence that I – as an independent statutory officer – will maintain that independence during any current or future arrangement where a Commonwealth agency supports my function. Keep in mind, bills need to be paid, HR matters dealt with, services procured, staff provided to assist me with my work. All administrative support critical to the operations of my office but there should be no doubt in people’s minds, that if a Commonwealth agency appears on my radar for not meeting the accountability thresholds I’ve mentioned earlier, there will be no – zero – fear or favour from me exercising my oversight, inquiry, audit, compliance, or enforcement powers to address and remedy any issues.  People who make the rules and administer the rules and hold others to a high level of accountability cannot break the rules – and not expect to be publicly held to account or in fact be held to a higher standard as the rule setters.

In 2023, the IGWC was added to the official list of Australia’s national integrity agencies. This is something that I and the office that supports me are very proud and grateful to be a part of complemented by the key functions of the IGWC:

• Oversight of other Commonwealth agencies under the Act.
• Oversight of Basin State agencies under the Act.
• Enforcing compliance with the Act.
• Conducting inquiries into how agencies perform obligations under the Act.
• Engaging with the Australian public on the management of Murray–Darling Basin water resources.

We are doing that work in your local government areas. I have staff living and working in your local government areas – they are active members of your communities. As part of the increase to our budget, I will be recruiting new staff to continue critical IGWC work across the Basin.

When I call for an inquiry, that inquiry will be held in the most appropriate location closest to that area of concern. That might be in your local government area… this might mean setting up a work area where I can interview witnesses and gather evidence. It might mean bringing IGWC staff to support me with investigations, public information sessions, community engagement, evidence gathering – on the ground and in the field. These staff will need temporary accommodation. They will need food and places to eat. Witnesses may need to travel and stay in your town – supported by my office to do so. Our on-ground work will contribute to the economy of the local communities where we need to do our work. It is my intention that where and when possible, we will not  undertake inquiry work remotely from a faraway city. This very much supports the IGWC’s foundational ethos I have had from the beginning: if we are to support the Basin, then we must live and work in the Basin.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I said at the beginning of this – the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance in water security is very small with little to no real impact. Where we do have impact is in the role of affecting change and supporting the success of the Basin Plan by:

• Delivering trust and transparency around the management of Murray-Darling Basin water resources.
• Ensuring the highest standard of accountability for all involved in the use and management of Basin resources, including state and Commonwealth agencies.
• Engaging with the community on management of Basin resources.

I wish all members and delegates of the Murray-Darling Association all the very best for a successful, meaningful, and insightful 80th national conference here in Tamworth, along the banks of the Peel River - an integral part of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

Watch the Inspector-General deliver this speech on the IGWC YouTube channel.