❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn asks about Perth's water consumption targets. Hon Kim Chance clarifies that while the initial target was 155 kilolitres, the current target is less than 100 kilolitres per person per year by 2012, as per the State Water Plan 2007.
AnsweredQoN 1233Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WATER RESOURCES - SCHEME WATER CONSUMPTION
I refer to the target in the 2003 state water strategy to reduce Perth’s scheme water consumption to less than 155 kilolitres per person per year by 2012. (1) Is this still the target for Perth’s scheme water consumption? (2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the target in the 2003 state water strategy to reduce Perth’s scheme water consumption to less than 155 kilolitres per person per year by 2012. (1) Is this still the target for Perth’s scheme water consumption? (2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(1) Is this still the target for Perth’s scheme water consumption? (2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(1) Is this still the target for Perth’s scheme water consumption? (2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(2) If no to (1), what is the current target? (3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(3) If yes, when will the state government be setting a new target to reflect the commitment in the “State Water Plan 2007” to improved water efficiency in Perth households? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
I thank Hon Paul Llewellyn for some notice of this question. (1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(1) When I look at the way in which the minister has answered (1), it says no, but it would be more accurate to slightly alter that to say yes. The member will understand why when he hears the answer. It is no but more accurately yes; it is sort of a yes-ish no. (2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(2) A “State Water Plan 2007” priority action includes reducing the annual household use of scheme water in Perth to less than 100 kilolitres per person by 2012. Because that is less than 155, I said the answer to (1) is yes; less than 100 is less than 155. (3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
(3) Refer to the answer to (2). The target has already been set.
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.