The Queensland Water Commission was created by Beattie on 19 June 2006, just before the Toowoomba referendum. Chaired by Elizabeth Nosworthy, a well-regarded and no-nonsense corporate bureaucrat, it was primarily set up to dictate uniform water restrictions in Southeast Queensland and to oversee the claims and activities of the various water authorities, which Malcolm Turnbull, among others, had criticised for self-interest and income maximisation at the expense of sound water policy.

The Southeast council mayors had been bickering for months about uniform water restrictions and they would often break ranks. Outrage greeted Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke when he allowed his own residents a ‘wet weekend’ of hosing down their driveways and washing their cars in May 2006, simply because the Hinze Dam happened to be full. But Clarke’s action reflected the local view voiced by many Gold Coast residents that they should not be dictated to by Brisbane. The complications of overlapping jurisdictions and financial responsibilities in the water bureaucracies are much less tractable. The Queensland Government is now proposing to buy out the interests of local governments in water, but councils are bitterly complaining that the remuneration is insufficient for both the asset value and its long-term income potential. Owning water and charging for it, along with sewerage provision, has formed a major part of councils’ urban assets and cash flow and has been a central plank in the services they provide for charging rates (Courier Mail, 21 April 2006. Between 1 May and 25 May 2006 the Gold Coast Bulletin continually reported the water-restriction issue).

The phenomenal success of the Queensland Water Commission in its ‘Target 140’ campaign, with Brisbane now boasting the lowest per-capita use of any major Australian urban area, shows just how much consumption can be reduced with media support and a degree of bi-partisan consensus, in marked contrast to the recycling referendum in Toowoomba, where cashed-up opponents ran a brilliant negative campaign as outlined, implying to the populace that they would literally be drinking from their own toilets. The negative campaign was aided and abetted — perhaps unknowingly — by sub-editors and picture editors who simply couldn’t resist pictures of toilet bowls linked to taps. This facile visual journalism cut across the serious discussion of the water crisis to be found in the same papers.

The Queensland Water Commission continues to run a clever and successful marketing campaign for its Target 140. The Commission’s website carries weekly updates on dam levels and household consumption. One of its key selling points is that if residents can stick to 140 litres, they will still be allowed to water plants with a bucket or watering-can for a few hours a week. This approach has the great merit that the Commission, while attempting to severely curtail household usage, is not trying to mandate exactly how and where individuals can use what is deemed as a reasonable, if heavily constrained, daily rate of consumption. There is an element of trust in this that has paid off in a level of region-wide compliance that is quite remarkable. Council mayors are mightily relieved that the Commission takes responsibility for determining water restrictions. Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke wanted to break ranks again in January 2008 when heavy summer rain overfilled the (small) Hinze Dam and he suggested that allowing ratepayers to hose down their driveways would reduce the risk of flooding. The Water Commission did make one minor and sensible concession: Gold Coast beaches could again turn on their outdoor showers (Gold Coast Bulletin; Courier Mail, January 2008).