By: David Nixon, NSW SQID Taskforce Chair, Sydney
Date: October 11, 2025
It’s one of the most deeply held beliefs in public policy: to ensure fairness, you must assemble a committee of impartial, independent experts, free from all bias. It’s a noble ideal. But in a specialised, complex field like stormwater management, it is also a complete fantasy.
The uncomfortable truth is that the people with the most profound knowledge to fix a broken system are, by definition, the most conflicted. Furthermore, the very notion of a “conflict of interest” is something we have conveniently and incorrectly confined to a single stereotype: the private sector.
The NSW SQID Taskforce has chosen to abandon this fantasy. We have built our entire reform effort on a more radical and realistic principle: the only way to create meaningful change is to bring every expert to the table, put every conflict in the open, and manage them with uncompromising transparency. This isn’t just about including the commercial players; it’s about acknowledging that everyone—from a council officer to a university academic—has a conflict of interest.
The Myth of the Independent Expert
When we search for an “independent” expert in stormwater, we are searching for a unicorn. The reality is that deep expertise is forged in the real world, and the real world is a web of competing interests.
- The engineers who best understand product limitations work for product manufacturers.
- The asset managers who know the true, long-term maintenance costs work for councils.
- The designers who understand the practical challenges of installation work for consultancies.
- The researchers pushing the boundaries of science have financial ties to industry through research grants.
To exclude these people in the name of purity is to purposefully build a committee of the less-informed. It guarantees a set of recommendations that are academically sound but practically useless.
This problem is compounded when we apply a double standard to what a “conflict” is. The commercial provider’s financial interest is obvious. But what about the others?
- Council Officers have a powerful institutional conflict. Their bias is towards solutions that fit their council’s budget and existing infrastructure, which may not be the best long-term technical choice.
- Government Department Staff have a political and bureaucratic conflict. Their advice is naturally shaped by the policy directives of the current government and a desire to avoid political risk.
- University Academics have an intellectual and financial conflict. They have careers built on certain theories and are often funded by the very industry or government bodies they are asked to critique.
None of these conflicts is inherently malicious. They are simply the realities of the professional world. The mistake is not in having these interests, but in pretending they don’t exist.
The Taskforce Model: Radical Transparency in Action
Instead of chasing an illusion of impartiality, we have built a system designed to harness expert knowledge by managing its inherent conflicts head-on. Our process, as outlined in our official Conflict of Interest Policy, is built on three non-negotiable pillars:
- Mandatory, Universal Disclosure: Every single person involved with the Taskforce must declare any actual, potential, or even perceived conflict of interest. This applies equally to a CEO, a council engineer, a government employee, and a university professor.
- A Public Register: We publish these declarations in a publicly accessible Conflict of Interest Register. This isn’t a secret document; it’s a tool for accountability. It puts everyone on an equal footing, making it clear that no single group is uniquely “conflicted” while others are “pure.”
- Active Management: Declaring a conflict is not enough. At every meeting, conflicts related to the agenda are raised. The committee then decides how to manage them—from simply noting the interest to requiring the conflicted member to abstain from voting or even leave the room during a specific debate.
This system transforms potential weaknesses into a collective strength. It creates a robust and realistic debate where the council officer’s budget constraints can be weighed against the manufacturer’s product claims and the academic’s research findings, all in the open. The final recommendations are not the product of a sterile, academic exercise; they are forged in the crucible of real-world interests and practical constraints.
The challenges we face are too complex for simple answers or pretend objectivity. The only way forward is to have the real conversations, with the real experts, by putting all the cards on the table.
We believe this transparent approach is the only way forward. The NSW SQID Taskforce’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Procedure outlines this process in full. We encourage you to review it and provide feedback on our model for change.
You can find our conflict of interest register for the report HERE.
Review the consultation draft, Volume One, outlining recommendations, available on the Stormwater 2030 website.Submit feedback via the Taskforce Feedback Form by Monday, December 1, 2025.
