❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinizes the Department of Water's handling of water license breaches by a goldfields company and a Pinjarra earthmoving company, questioning prosecution inconsistencies.
AnsweredQoN 3204Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article dated November 5 2005, which appeared on page 10 of
The
Kalgoorlie Miner
titled ‘Company’s water use under investigation’ and a Media statement dated Thursday November 8 2005, titled ‘Prosecution- taking water without a licence’ -
(1) Can the Minister state how many litres did the company in the goldfields exceed its water allowance permitted under licence conditions?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state what is the maximum penalty under the
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914
for the goldfields company exceeding its licence conditions?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the goldfields company be prosecuted for exceeding its licensed water allowance?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the name of the goldfields company which has exceeded it licensed water allowance?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother setting licence conditions for water usage, given that the Department has been extremely reluctant to prosecute when licence exceedance limits have been breached?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many litres of water the Pinjarra based earthmoving company took for use in road works?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain how does the Department justify prosecuting the Pinjarra based earthmoving company and not prosecuting the goldfields company?
(14) If no to (15), why not?
The
Kalgoorlie Miner
titled ‘Company’s water use under investigation’ and a Media statement dated Thursday November 8 2005, titled ‘Prosecution- taking water without a licence’ -
(1) Can the Minister state how many litres did the company in the goldfields exceed its water allowance permitted under licence conditions?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state what is the maximum penalty under the
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914
for the goldfields company exceeding its licence conditions?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the goldfields company be prosecuted for exceeding its licensed water allowance?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the name of the goldfields company which has exceeded it licensed water allowance?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother setting licence conditions for water usage, given that the Department has been extremely reluctant to prosecute when licence exceedance limits have been breached?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many litres of water the Pinjarra based earthmoving company took for use in road works?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain how does the Department justify prosecuting the Pinjarra based earthmoving company and not prosecuting the goldfields company?
(14) If no to (15), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister representing the Minister for the Water Resources
Response time
103 days
(1) It appears that the company exceeded its licence allocation by 145,803kL or 8% of the licensed allocation. (2) Not applicable. (3) The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 with a daily penalty up to $1,000. This can be multiplied by up to five times for a body corporate under section 40 of the Sentencing Act 1995 . (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 with a daily penalty up to $1,000. This can be multiplied by up to five times for a body corporate under section 40 of the Sentencing Act 1995 . (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(3) The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 with a daily penalty up to $1,000. This can be multiplied by up to five times for a body corporate under section 40 of the Sentencing Act 1995 . (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 with a daily penalty up to $1,000. This can be multiplied by up to five times for a body corporate under section 40 of the Sentencing Act 1995 . (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(3) The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 with a daily penalty up to $1,000. This can be multiplied by up to five times for a body corporate under section 40 of the Sentencing Act 1995 . (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(5) No. (6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(6) Upon investigation, the available evidence did not support a prima facie case for exceedance of an allocation. It was also noted that there was no impact on the environment or other users and the company applied for an increase in its licensed allocation and this was subsequently granted. As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
As part of the investigation, the Department of Water (DoW) determined that the company did not report the exceedance of its licence allocation in accordance with Statewide Policy No 10 - Use of Operating Strategies in the Water Licensing Process (available on the DoW's website at www.water.wa.gov.au ). After careful consideration of the circumstances, the DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case) elected to deal with this by way of a letter of education. (7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(7) No. (8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(8) It is inappropriate to name the company as the offence was not proven before the courts. (9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(9) The DoW (on behalf of the Water and Rivers Commission in this case), regulates industry in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the relevant objectives of the legislation administered by the Department. Enforcement action is applied consistently in line within the legislative powers conferred on the DoW and in accordance with the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
As per (6) a prima facie case did not exist for the exceedance of allocation, therefore it would be inappropriate to undertake enforcement or prosecution action. (10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(10) Not applicable. (11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(11) 120,000 to 160,000 litres of water. (12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(12) Not applicable. (13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
(13) - (14) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the DoW's investigation is currently before the courts.
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.