❓ Opposition questions the accuracy of water savings figures in the Waterwise rebate program. Minister defends the program's success, citing Auditor General's findings on efficiency and market impact, while acknowledging accounting concerns.
AnsweredQoN 269Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WATERWISE REBATE PROGRAM
I refer to the Auditor General’s criticism today of the government’s mismanagement of the Waterwise rebate program, and the lack of integrity in the government’s media statements and other reports on the issue. (1) Will the minister apologise for using misleading figures to overstate the success of the program, including the figures used in his own ministerial statement of July last year? (2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
I refer to the Auditor General’s criticism today of the government’s mismanagement of the Waterwise rebate program, and the lack of integrity in the government’s media statements and other reports on the issue. (1) Will the minister apologise for using misleading figures to overstate the success of the program, including the figures used in his own ministerial statement of July last year? (2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(1) Will the minister apologise for using misleading figures to overstate the success of the program, including the figures used in his own ministerial statement of July last year? (2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(1) Will the minister apologise for using misleading figures to overstate the success of the program, including the figures used in his own ministerial statement of July last year? (2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(2) Will the minister ensure that firm targets are put in place as a matter of urgency so that the amount of water saved through the program can be accurately determined? (3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(3) Given that the amount of water saved is a key requirement in judging the success of the program, will the minister concede that his government’s mismanagement of the program by not setting targets is a huge failure? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
(1)-(3) It never ceases to amaze me how the opposition puts a negative spin on a fantastic story; it does it time after time. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the Auditor General’s report. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. I will read from the overview in the Auditor General’s report tabled today. The first key finding states - Rebate applications are processed by the Water Corporation in an accurate and timely manner. The second finding states - The Water Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program. It goes on, and I am only reading from part of the report. The third finding states - The program has achieved water savings . . . It also states that the Auditor General’s - analysis suggests that the rebate program is cost effective relative to new water sources. So it is win, win, win. Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.H.D. Day : Read the next dot point. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I am coming to that. The part that the member picks up - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Mr Speaker, the part that the member picks up is the Auditor General’s view that, in terms of accounting, the underlying issue is that people may have bought a water-saving appliance even without the rebate. Therefore, following through as a proper accountant would, he is saying that we cannot guarantee that the money we spent on providing the rebate actually changed consumer behaviour and we cannot attribute all of that expenditure flowing through directly to water savings. In other words, some people may have bought a particular appliance, such as a water-efficient showerhead or a front-loading washing machine, without the rebate, so that cannot be related to the rebate program. I do not believe that we should spend money excessively on monitoring the program, which is what we would do if we went down that path. Does the member suggest that we ask everyone to fill in a statutory declaration saying that they bought an appliance because they got the rebate? There is a valid point there, but the decision that we must make is whether we put a whole lot of money into monitoring to get the outcome. The Auditor General accepts that we are getting the outcomes, but says that there is not the clear accountability process that he would like to validate the percentage of savings that we believe is there and that we are claiming; I accept that. However, we must also take account of the fact, which is in the Auditor General’s report, that when it comes to front-loading washing machines, we in Western Australia, through providing the rebate, have changed the behaviour of manufacturers. When we started this initiative, only 10 products on the market met the criteria for a rebate. That figure increased to several hundred after we began that initiative. The government’s program changed the whole market because the majority of washing machines now being sold are water efficient. How do we put that information into figures? As a result of the rebate, we have totally changed the products on the market, which, in turn, means huge water savings. On that basis, if we wanted to use a different accounting model, we could claim more savings because some people who buy the very efficient washing machines do not claim the rebate. The point is that we accept that the Auditor General has quite rightly pointed out that the accounting basis on which the claims are made can be questioned. However, a range of other factors come into play. The outcome is very clear. We are getting good results. The opposition can quibble over how much, but clearly the money is well spent and the water that is saved is a cost per kilolitre below what it would cost to extract water from a new source. The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
The SPEAKER : It is important that we note the member for Greenough’s comments about people not fixing their own washing machines.
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.