❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Target 60 water saving campaign, questioning the decline in water savings between the first and second years, and seeking detailed cost breakdowns and calculation methodologies. The answer provides figures and explanations, but lacks detail in some areas.
AnsweredQoN 5995Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Target 60 water saving campaign, and ask —
(1) According to the Minister for Water's media release on 11 February 2011, during its first summer of operation (1/12/2010 to 31/03/2011), Target 60 saved 13 billion litres of water. This compares to a figure of 6.9 billion litres saved during the campaign's second summer of operation (1/12/2011 to 31/03/2012), according to information on the Water Corporation website. What reason or reasons are thought to be behind the much lower total water savings last summer from Target 60 compared to the campaign's first summer of operation?
(2) Please provide figures for the total cost of the Target 60 campaign for —
(a) its first summer of operation (2010-2011); and
(b) its second summer of operation (2011-2012).
(3) In relation to (2), please provide a breakdown, for both years by item, of the amount of money spent on advertising the Target 60 campaign, including money spent on —
(a) television advertising;
(b) radio advertising;
(c) newspaper advertising; and
(d) other forms of advertising (please specify).
(4) In relation to (2), please provide a summary of what were the other major costs of the campaign for each summer.
(5) Please provide a detailed explanation of how the total water savings for the previous summers of operation (13 billion litres and 6.9 billion litres) were calculated, including what assumptions were made about —
(a) what total scheme water use would have been if Target 60 had not been run; and
(b) whether Target 60 participants actually carry out actions they have committed to under the program.
(6) The August 2012 Water Corporation e-newsletter '
Mainstream
' suggests that 15 billion litres of water will need to be saved this summer. Given last summer Target 60 only saved 6.9 billion litres of water, what is the basis for the expectation that this summer the program will achieve water savings of more than twice that amount?
(1) According to the Minister for Water's media release on 11 February 2011, during its first summer of operation (1/12/2010 to 31/03/2011), Target 60 saved 13 billion litres of water. This compares to a figure of 6.9 billion litres saved during the campaign's second summer of operation (1/12/2011 to 31/03/2012), according to information on the Water Corporation website. What reason or reasons are thought to be behind the much lower total water savings last summer from Target 60 compared to the campaign's first summer of operation?
(2) Please provide figures for the total cost of the Target 60 campaign for —
(a) its first summer of operation (2010-2011); and
(b) its second summer of operation (2011-2012).
(3) In relation to (2), please provide a breakdown, for both years by item, of the amount of money spent on advertising the Target 60 campaign, including money spent on —
(a) television advertising;
(b) radio advertising;
(c) newspaper advertising; and
(d) other forms of advertising (please specify).
(4) In relation to (2), please provide a summary of what were the other major costs of the campaign for each summer.
(5) Please provide a detailed explanation of how the total water savings for the previous summers of operation (13 billion litres and 6.9 billion litres) were calculated, including what assumptions were made about —
(a) what total scheme water use would have been if Target 60 had not been run; and
(b) whether Target 60 participants actually carry out actions they have committed to under the program.
(6) The August 2012 Water Corporation e-newsletter '
Mainstream
' suggests that 15 billion litres of water will need to be saved this summer. Given last summer Target 60 only saved 6.9 billion litres of water, what is the basis for the expectation that this summer the program will achieve water savings of more than twice that amount?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 October 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Water
Response time
35 days
(1) Water saved through the Target 60 campaign period (1 December to 31 March) is estimated as the difference between predicted water supply and actual water supply.
In 2011/12, the predicted water supply was reduced to account for water savings embedded through previous years' water efficiency initiatives.
(2) (a) $1,876,064
(b) $1,677,707
(3)
2010/2011
Television advertising $580,680
Radio advertising $232,560
Newspaper advertising $313,918
Other forms of advertising Refer (4)
2011/12
Television advertising $591,858
Radio advertising $122,292
Newspaper advertising $230,512
Other forms of advertising Refer (4)
(4)
2010/11
Non Corporation website advertising $89,118
Billboards and bus shelter advertising $75,500
Cinema advertising $15,550
Target 60 Website (microsite) $11,376
2011/12
Non Corporation website advertising $27,500
Electronic direct mail $20,000
Billboards and bus shelter advertising $342,300
Cinema $48,400
Community Events $19,021
Target 60 Website (microsite) $70,586
(5) Water saved through the Target 60 Campaign period is estimated as the difference between predicted water supply and measured water supply from dams, groundwater sources, desalination facilities and service reservoirs.
a) Predicted supply for 2010/11 was 301.8 Gigalitres
Predicted supply for 2011/12 was 297.5 Gigalitres
b) No assumptions were made about whether Target 60 participants actually carried out actions they committed to under the program and these savings figures were not used in any calculations.
(6) Water savings of 15 Gigalitres are expected to be achieved for the entire 2012/2013 year across a range of water efficiency programs.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
In 2011/12, the predicted water supply was reduced to account for water savings embedded through previous years' water efficiency initiatives.
(2) (a) $1,876,064
(b) $1,677,707
(3)
2010/2011
Television advertising $580,680
Radio advertising $232,560
Newspaper advertising $313,918
Other forms of advertising Refer (4)
2011/12
Television advertising $591,858
Radio advertising $122,292
Newspaper advertising $230,512
Other forms of advertising Refer (4)
(4)
2010/11
Non Corporation website advertising $89,118
Billboards and bus shelter advertising $75,500
Cinema advertising $15,550
Target 60 Website (microsite) $11,376
2011/12
Non Corporation website advertising $27,500
Electronic direct mail $20,000
Billboards and bus shelter advertising $342,300
Cinema $48,400
Community Events $19,021
Target 60 Website (microsite) $70,586
(5) Water saved through the Target 60 Campaign period is estimated as the difference between predicted water supply and measured water supply from dams, groundwater sources, desalination facilities and service reservoirs.
a) Predicted supply for 2010/11 was 301.8 Gigalitres
Predicted supply for 2011/12 was 297.5 Gigalitres
b) No assumptions were made about whether Target 60 participants actually carried out actions they committed to under the program and these savings figures were not used in any calculations.
(6) Water savings of 15 Gigalitres are expected to be achieved for the entire 2012/2013 year across a range of water efficiency programs.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.