(1)   During which month of the 2003-2004 financial year was the risk management plan finalised.

(2)   What specific measures is the Government taking, through its proposed risk management or adaptive management approaches, and during the remaining years of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), to ensure the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) is consistently applied across all Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions and that its investments in salinity and water quality are underpinned by NWQMS planning processes.

(3)   Will the Minister provide an implementation strategy for the achievement of intended outputs.

(4)   Why did the Government fail to prepare a risk management plan for the NAP until 2003-2004.

(5)   Does the NAP agencies’ risk management plan address the risk (a) that there are insufficient resources under the NAP to achieve its objectives, (b) that in some regions dryland salinity is very difficult to prevent, stabilise or reverse during the life of the NAP, (c) that regional NRM groups lack the capacity to deliver NAP objectives, (d) of difficulty targeting cost-effective actions, (e) that commercially attractive treatment options (ie options which would attract private investment) for regions may not be available, (f) of delays establishing bilateral agreements, accreditation criteria and frameworks, (g) of delays or failure to establish resource condition targets, (h) of the absence or inadequacy of predictive models, (i) that monitoring strategies are incapable of tracking attainment of targets, (j) of failure of regional NRM groups to implement nationally agreed strategies, such as the National Water Quality Management Strategy, (k) if delay in NAP decision-making due to the involvement of multiple jurisdictions and Ministers, the timing of State and Federal elections and the establishment of regional NRM groups; and (l) of limited opportunities for adaptive management during the life of the NAP that result from delayed NRM plan accreditation, three year investment strategies and regional and community expectations; if so, what are the proposed treatments for those risks.

(6)   Why is the ANAO not reviewing administration of the NAP until 2008 at the end of the program.

(7)   Would it be a useful risk management measure for the ANAO to undertake annual reports on the NAP.

(8)   In respect of the risk management plan, (a) how frequently is it formally reviewed, (b) has it been presented to NAP Ministers for approval, (c) are reviews of the plan presented to NAP Ministers for approval, (d) who approves the plan, and (e) which guidelines are used to guide preparation and review of the risk management plan.

(9)   Is the Minister aware that NRM groups are already exhausted by NRM planning, management, monitoring and evaluation obligations.

(10)   What additional resources will the Commonwealth provide to assist regional groups to improve their risk/adaptive management systems.

(11)   What will be the Government’s approach to implementing risk management procedures for NRM at the regional level during the period of the NAP and what specific human resources will be dedicated in the joint agencies to ensure risk management is comprehensively and competently employed by regional groups.

(1)   The risk management plan was initially developed in September 2003. It has the status of a working document, and has therefore been progressively refined since that date.

(2)   The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) is a guide to all regional bodies that have identified water quality as a priority. As State and Territory Governments have direct responsibility for the management of water resources, it is clearly also prudent for regional organisations to access the information resources provided by those governments. Where specific actions are required in a region under the NWQMS these need to be included in the regional National Resource Management (NRM) plan.

(3)   The intended outputs of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and their implementation arrangements are included in the regional NRM plans and investment strategies. Links to these documents are on the NRM website www.nrm.gov.au and the documents are also available from regional organisations.

(4)   The risk management plan is a living document which was commenced in early 2003. In the early stages of the NAP implementation risks were managed on a case-by-case basis. This reflected the exploratory nature of these stages, including difficulties in sensibly identifying the full range of feasible risks for a new program of this kind. However, as the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) noted in its recent review of the NAP, “Ministers were advised of some of the potential higher order risks in the early stages of the program” and these were addressed accordingly. For instance, the timing of program expenditure was recognised as both critical to the success of the NAP and “quite uncertain”, given its dependence on factors such as the length of time needed to progress regional initiatives (see para. 2.20, ANAO report). The ANAO also noted (para. 2.50), that “there was little scope for the Australian Government agencies to have accelerated the implementation process” in the early stages of the program, given delays in reaching agreements with State and Territory governments. These delays exacerbated uncertainties relating to program expenditure.

(5)   The risk management plan covers the types of risks identified in the question. Risk management entails identifying all possible risks and focussing on those that are within the program managers’ control and are some combination of high impact or high likelihood. Treatments for these types of risks have been included in the management, administration and reporting arrangements for the program.

(6)   and (7) The ANAO report states that it “intends to conduct a follow-up audit prior to the current NAP completion date of 2008 to provide Parliament with an assessment of the administrative effectiveness of the program”. Questions about the ANAO’s audit and work programs should be directed to the ANAO. (8)   (a) The risk management plan is reviewed as part of the annual planning cycle for the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and the Environment and Heritage (DEH). (b) The plans have not been presented to Ministers. They are a normal part of departmental administration of Government programs. (c) Given its iterative nature, and the status of the NAP/NHT risk management plan as an internal working document, Ministerial approval is not sought. (d) The plans are considered by Senior Executives of the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Environment and Heritage. (e) The risk management plan for the NAP/NHT was based on the Australian/New Zealand Standard for Risk Management by Standards Australia (AS/NZS4360:2004). The plan was also guided by the DAFF Risk Management Framework and the DAFF Risk Management Toolkit, the DEH Risk Management Handbook and the DEH Chief Executive Instructions (CEI) No 7.1 and DAFF CEI No. 24 on risk management.

(8) (a)   The risk management plan is reviewed as part of the annual planning cycle for the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and the Environment and Heritage (DEH). (b) The plans have not been presented to Ministers. They are a normal part of departmental administration of Government programs. (c) Given its iterative nature, and the status of the NAP/NHT risk management plan as an internal working document, Ministerial approval is not sought. (d) The plans are considered by Senior Executives of the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Environment and Heritage. (e) The risk management plan for the NAP/NHT was based on the Australian/New Zealand Standard for Risk Management by Standards Australia (AS/NZS4360:2004). The plan was also guided by the DAFF Risk Management Framework and the DAFF Risk Management Toolkit, the DEH Risk Management Handbook and the DEH Chief Executive Instructions (CEI) No 7.1 and DAFF CEI No. 24 on risk management.

(9)   The Australian Government recognises the considerable time and effort NRM groups are putting into their work. The Government is assisting regional groups in the transition from shorter-term, output-based projects to the integrated catchment scale planning through specific financial support for the preparation of plans, and broader capacity-building initiatives. The ANAO report recognised that, although the transition to the regional delivery model has been challenging, the model has “many strong design features, including the flexibility to meet the needs of different regions with appropriate action and to empower local communities”. The ANAO also found that respondents from regional groups surveyed as part of its review were “overwhelmingly positive” (para. 2.54 of the ANAO report) in response to the statement “that the NAP is a well-designed program that is appropriate” for regional needs.

(10)   Resources for regions are considered in the context of the investment required to achieve the outputs and outcomes being sought. The Australian Government is currently working with State Governments and regional bodies to improve the governance arrangements of regional bodies, particularly in relation to their capacity for financial management, management systems and risk management. The evaluation is expected to be completed in August 2005.

(11)   As noted in the response to Question 10, an evaluation of governance at the regional level is due in August this year. Additionally the Community Forum, involving the chairs of all regional bodies, discussed governance arrangements at its meeting in April 2005. Appropriate actions will be developed following consideration of the outcomes of the Forum and the findings of the evaluation.