❓ Mr. Ripper defends the Gallop government's desalination plant as a nationally significant solution to Perth's water security, contrasting it with the opposition's past criticism and highlighting Sydney's water crisis.
AnsweredQoN 101Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Acting Premier respond to the latest endorsement of the Gallop government’s visionary water strategy? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
The desalination plant being built by the Gallop government is a development of national significance. Water security is an issue that all governments in this country must confront. Indeed, Tim Flannery in an upcoming book apparently compares the circumstances of Perth and Sydney. I was interested to read a recent article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald . Mr Flannery is quoted in that article as stating - “Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply,” . . . Until our own canal catastrophe, this was a possibility ignored by the opposition. Fortunately, the Gallop government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the city will not face that disastrous future. The desalination plant will future-proof Perth against falling rainfall levels, providing a 17 per cent increase in potable water supplies to secure our city’s future water needs. Among the states, we are taking the lead. Paul Sheehan stated - Sydney, its government and its residents, are living in the past. Perth is our future. Three days later a report appeared on news.com.au which stated that plans to build a $2 billion desalination plant on the Sydney coastline to solve that city’s water crisis would go to the New South Wales cabinet next week. Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The desalination plant being built by the Gallop government is a development of national significance. Water security is an issue that all governments in this country must confront. Indeed, Tim Flannery in an upcoming book apparently compares the circumstances of Perth and Sydney. I was interested to read a recent article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald . Mr Flannery is quoted in that article as stating - “Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply,” . . . Until our own canal catastrophe, this was a possibility ignored by the opposition. Fortunately, the Gallop government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the city will not face that disastrous future. The desalination plant will future-proof Perth against falling rainfall levels, providing a 17 per cent increase in potable water supplies to secure our city’s future water needs. Among the states, we are taking the lead. Paul Sheehan stated - Sydney, its government and its residents, are living in the past. Perth is our future. Three days later a report appeared on news.com.au which stated that plans to build a $2 billion desalination plant on the Sydney coastline to solve that city’s water crisis would go to the New South Wales cabinet next week. Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
The desalination plant being built by the Gallop government is a development of national significance. Water security is an issue that all governments in this country must confront. Indeed, Tim Flannery in an upcoming book apparently compares the circumstances of Perth and Sydney. I was interested to read a recent article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald . Mr Flannery is quoted in that article as stating - “Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply,” . . . Until our own canal catastrophe, this was a possibility ignored by the opposition. Fortunately, the Gallop government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the city will not face that disastrous future. The desalination plant will future-proof Perth against falling rainfall levels, providing a 17 per cent increase in potable water supplies to secure our city’s future water needs. Among the states, we are taking the lead. Paul Sheehan stated - Sydney, its government and its residents, are living in the past. Perth is our future. Three days later a report appeared on news.com.au which stated that plans to build a $2 billion desalination plant on the Sydney coastline to solve that city’s water crisis would go to the New South Wales cabinet next week. Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The desalination plant being built by the Gallop government is a development of national significance. Water security is an issue that all governments in this country must confront. Indeed, Tim Flannery in an upcoming book apparently compares the circumstances of Perth and Sydney. I was interested to read a recent article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald . Mr Flannery is quoted in that article as stating - “Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply,” . . . Until our own canal catastrophe, this was a possibility ignored by the opposition. Fortunately, the Gallop government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the city will not face that disastrous future. The desalination plant will future-proof Perth against falling rainfall levels, providing a 17 per cent increase in potable water supplies to secure our city’s future water needs. Among the states, we are taking the lead. Paul Sheehan stated - Sydney, its government and its residents, are living in the past. Perth is our future. Three days later a report appeared on news.com.au which stated that plans to build a $2 billion desalination plant on the Sydney coastline to solve that city’s water crisis would go to the New South Wales cabinet next week. Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
The desalination plant being built by the Gallop government is a development of national significance. Water security is an issue that all governments in this country must confront. Indeed, Tim Flannery in an upcoming book apparently compares the circumstances of Perth and Sydney. I was interested to read a recent article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald . Mr Flannery is quoted in that article as stating - “Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply,” . . . Until our own canal catastrophe, this was a possibility ignored by the opposition. Fortunately, the Gallop government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the city will not face that disastrous future. The desalination plant will future-proof Perth against falling rainfall levels, providing a 17 per cent increase in potable water supplies to secure our city’s future water needs. Among the states, we are taking the lead. Paul Sheehan stated - Sydney, its government and its residents, are living in the past. Perth is our future. Three days later a report appeared on news.com.au which stated that plans to build a $2 billion desalination plant on the Sydney coastline to solve that city’s water crisis would go to the New South Wales cabinet next week. Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Clearly, the Gallop government has established Perth as a benchmark by which other cities will be judged regarding their water security. The other states are coming up to that benchmark. What about the opposition in Western Australia? The opposition Minister for Water Resources said - Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Who is the shadow minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Hon Murray Criddle. He said - “At a cost of $346 million to build and $25 million a year to run, the Kwinana plant is an expensive, environmentally damaging and bloody-minded approach to meeting WA’s water needs.” He was not the only opposition member to express that view. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, said that desalination was a last resort and that a Liberal government would not proceed with a desalination plant. The opposition should recognise that it had a disastrous election campaign. It was a disastrous campaign on the question of fiscal responsibility and on the question of water resources. One would expect the opposition to undertake a review of its policy positions and political strategy after an election campaign like that. Let us hope that in that review the opposition will take note of the national leadership that the Gallop government has displayed on the question of desalination. Let us hope that it will notice what the other states are doing. Let us also hope that at long last it gets behind the desalination plant and this solution to our water security needs.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.