What does the future hold for Australia's national water resources? IWF Director Lorrae van Kerkhoff explores the possibilities.

In 2022 the Labor Party, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese, made an election promise to reinstate the National Water Commission (NWC). This was welcomed by many in the water sector; the original NWC had the important role of independent oversight of the complex water management agreements under the Water Act 2007 and the National Water Initiative. After a decade of operation, the NWC was abolished in 2014.

Since winning the election there has been very little communication from the Commonwealth about this promise. The so-called ‘refresh’ of the National Water Initiative into a National Water Agreement is well under way, but the NWC is only conspicuous by its absence. In considering the new National Water Agreement however, we can also consider whether the idea of the NWC might also be in need of a refresh, and if so, what could a revitalised NWC fit for 2025 onwards actually look like?

In our Institute for Water Futures submission to the consultation on the draft National Water Agreement, we proposed that the Commonwealth should consider not simply reinstating a NWC like-for-like, but to focus the activities of this body as a “Commission for the Future” – essentially a National Water Futures Commission. In this blog I expand on what that could be, why it is needed, and some comparisons with inspiring international examples.

A National Water Futures Commission would reorientate the central task of a Commission from that of general accountability to that of supporting the capacities, capabilities and culture of water governance to make decisions taking into account robust, rigorous and well-informed long-term, inter-generational futures. As an independent statutory body, such a commission would have the role of both enabling these capacities as well as challenging government processes that are not coherent with plausible future scenarios. This commission would be ongoing, a-political, and incorporate both technical and expert-led analyses with community and industry dialogue. Using established futures thinking methods it would identify key trends, risks, potential emergent change, possible ‘low-probability high-impact’ events and monitor overall social, economic and environmental transformation as it relates to water governance. Through training, high-level seminars and dialogues the Commission would play a central role in growing capability in strategic foresight and other futures methods towards a culture of long-term decision-making.

The need for long-term, strategic and future-proof policies, plans, regulations, agreements and other water governance instruments appears repeatedly in government statements. The Commonwealth Government Minister for Water, Hon. Tanya Plibersek, describes their $AU2bn “Water for Australia” plan as intended “to future-proof Australia’s water resources“. Climate change is perhaps the most obvious driver; if water governance and its associated instruments and mechanisms fail to take climate change into account then it is simply not fit-for-purpose. Short-term incentives can easily generate maladaptive outcomes – practices that may generate short-term benefit but undermine long-term goals.  But other drivers are also at play such as demographic changes (including rapid population growth in some areas and population decline in others), technologies, changing agricultural markets, and ruptures in social licence to operate. The impact of combined macro-trends are not simple linear extrapolations from what we can see happening around us now. While our increasingly sophisticated modelling can usefully inform deliberations about some parameters, there are many possible futures that can emerge from the wide range of plausible assumptions we can make about these and other emerging forces for change.

Commissions for the Future in other sectors demonstrate how such a body might work, and also offer some useful lessons. The UK’s Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care was tasked specifically with examining whether the administrative and financial division between health care provision and social care that was established after World War 2 was fit-for-purpose in the 21st century. This Commission convened wide consultations and research to respond to this question, including creating an ‘experts by experience’ panel to draw in the lived experience of users. Germany’s Commission for the Future of Agriculture was convened in response to the crisis of farmer protests in 2020. It developed 12 Guiding Principles to enable rapid transformation of the agricultural sector towards economic, social and environmental sustainability. Both of these examples are short-term interventions. An alternative is to create a Commission that has a long-term role in developing the skills, capacities, mindsets and cultures that support long-term thinking and planning across multiple possible futures. In Wales, for example, the Commission for the Well-being of Future Generations was established by an Act of Parliament in 2015, and has ongoing Commissioners to oversee the implementation of the Act. Closer to home the ACT and Victoria both have ongoing Commissioners for sustainability and environment.

The OECD have compiled a summary of examples where strategic foresight and futures thinking have been developed and fostered to support more forward-looking, anticipatory governance, including through the establishment of dedicated foresight institutions. This review highlights that successful futures organisations must achieve a robust balance between supporting high-level decision-makers through effective dialogue and engagement, and maintaining sufficient independence to challenge those same decision-makers especially by confronting “uncomfortable” futures.

Within Australia, the current Futures Hub collaboration between the Australian National University and the Commonwealth Government could provide a springboard for developing a National Water Futures Commission. The Futures Hub and associated Australian Strategic Futures Network has traditionally focused on issues of national security, but also has a wide base of people, tools, techniques and experience that could catalyse an emergent National Water Futures Commission, and indeed could embed such a Commission in a supportive network of futures practice within and across the Commonwealth Government. The ANU Institute for Water Futures could also play an active supporting role.

Having sophisticated, nuanced capability to explore, identify, assess and strategically manage for diverse futures is the central skill set needed for water governance in the 21st century. A dedicated National Water Futures Commission, focused on developing and integrating these capabilities into water governance across all levels of government and non-government decision-making, would place Australia at the forefront of water management world-wide.