❓ Opposition questions the government's lack of flood mitigation funding in Carnarvon, holding them responsible for flood damage and inaction on locust plagues. The Premier defends the government's response and questions the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
AnsweredQoN 91Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CARNARVON FLOOD DAMAGE
My question is about regional development or lack thereof. I refer to correspondence from Carnarvon shire president Dudley Maslen to the former Minister for Water on 17 February 2010 in which he warned the government of — … growing concern within the Shire, at the lack of progress with Stage II of the Lower Gascoyne Flood Mitigation Works. (1) Given the government’s failure to fund stage 2, against all advice, does it take responsibility for the flood damage caused in Carnarvon? (2) Has the government approved funding for the much-needed levy banks, which, had they been in place, would have substantially reduced the damage to Carnarvon plantations? (3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT
My question is about regional development or lack thereof. I refer to correspondence from Carnarvon shire president Dudley Maslen to the former Minister for Water on 17 February 2010 in which he warned the government of — … growing concern within the Shire, at the lack of progress with Stage II of the Lower Gascoyne Flood Mitigation Works. (1) Given the government’s failure to fund stage 2, against all advice, does it take responsibility for the flood damage caused in Carnarvon? (2) Has the government approved funding for the much-needed levy banks, which, had they been in place, would have substantially reduced the damage to Carnarvon plantations? (3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(2) Has the government approved funding for the much-needed levy banks, which, had they been in place, would have substantially reduced the damage to Carnarvon plantations? (3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(2) Has the government approved funding for the much-needed levy banks, which, had they been in place, would have substantially reduced the damage to Carnarvon plantations? (3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(3) Will the Premier immediately table the flood mitigation cost–benefit analysis, considering that according to the people in Carnarvon, where I was on Friday, the analysis was due at the end of last year? (4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(4) Is not the government repeating its lack of foresight and once again letting down Carnarvon growers by failing to take action against the spur-throated locusts that are now threatening the crops on the damaged farms? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Storm and pestilence—so biblical! Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Go up there — and it is; have a look at the farms! Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : (1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
(1)–(4) I did. The flooding was very severe in Carnarvon. I think it has had three floods over the summer period, which is unusual. I went up to Carnarvon the day after the floods. The floodwaters had started to recede at that time, but the destruction to property, particularly farming properties, was very obvious. I looked from a helicopter with Dudley Maslen, the shire president. The waters, from his observation, were not flowing in the way that they were generally thought to flow in a severe flood. Indeed, there was some question of what form of mitigation scheme would be effective. Possibly any mitigation scheme would have failed given the flood’s severity. The government provided immediate financial assistance. Through the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the government also provided $3 million for soil replacement. The government is also negotiating to buy some of the farm properties—which perhaps should never have been developed for farming—that are the most vulnerable. The damage was caused not so much by the floodwaters rising; most of the scouring occurred as the floodwaters receded and basically flowed into the banks of the river. We are looking at taking those farm properties back into public ownership, because they will be damaged in any severe flood. We are looking at mitigation and what would be effective. Indeed, from my discussions on that day, the shire had a different view of what would be most effective. The member for North West is right across those issues. Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : From Kensington? Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for North West and Hon Ken Baston were absolutely fantastic in being close to their communities. All the emergency services were right on the ball and provided a lot of immediate assistance. I think that is commendable. We will look at mitigation measures, but I think what was previously proposed may not be the solution. We will look at mitigation measures carefully. The Leader of the Opposition always wants to have cost–benefit analyses. Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You promised it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Leader of the Opposition must live on a diet of cost–benefit analyses! The world changed on September 11, but the Labor Party has not changed; all it wants is cost–benefit analyses, reports, inquiries and committees! That is the nature of the Labor Party. An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
An opposition member: What has September 11 got to do with it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will explain to the member one day. The Labor Party has not caught on to the modern world. Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Ms R. Saffioti : That is the stupidest thing! Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Stupidest thing”—from the member for West Swan! We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
We are looking at mitigation and there may be simpler and more effective measures than what was proposed. The member for North West, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Water are working on that issue.
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.