❓ The Minister for Water Resources defends the government's infill sewerage program against claims that delays are destroying the river, citing scientific data on nutrient loads and program completion rates. The exchange becomes heated with accusations and interjections from both sides.
AnsweredQoN 210Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister advise the house about the accuracy of the assertion attributed to the member for Carine on the front page of The West Australian on 9 May that the government was destroying the river by delaying the infill sewerage program? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
The final paragraph in a report in The West Australian on 9 May states - Opposition environment spokeswoman, Katie Hodson-Thomas said the government was destroying the river by delaying an infill sewerage program. Obviously that is without any foundation and is totally untrue. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: The final paragraph in a report in The West Australian on 9 May states - Opposition environment spokeswoman, Katie Hodson-Thomas said the government was destroying the river by delaying an infill sewerage program. Obviously that is without any foundation and is totally untrue. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The final paragraph in a report in The West Australian on 9 May states - Opposition environment spokeswoman, Katie Hodson-Thomas said the government was destroying the river by delaying an infill sewerage program. Obviously that is without any foundation and is totally untrue. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: The final paragraph in a report in The West Australian on 9 May states - Opposition environment spokeswoman, Katie Hodson-Thomas said the government was destroying the river by delaying an infill sewerage program. Obviously that is without any foundation and is totally untrue. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The final paragraph in a report in The West Australian on 9 May states - Opposition environment spokeswoman, Katie Hodson-Thomas said the government was destroying the river by delaying an infill sewerage program. Obviously that is without any foundation and is totally untrue. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : There is foundation. You know that is true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying it is true? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : Since you have come to government, you have delayed that project. You know it. If you try telling us in this place you have not, you are misleading the place. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying she was correctly reported on the front page of The West Australian ? Was the member correctly reported? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas : You answer the question. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Was the member correctly reported? Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It sounds like the member for Carine knows that The West Australian reported something that was factually wrong. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The member for Carine would not answer a very simple question about whether what she said was accurately reported because she knows her statement is factually inaccurate. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Prove it. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : I will. Some 96 per cent of all the sensitive ground water movement into catchment areas of the Canning and Swan Rivers have already had infill sewerage systems installed. I repeat: 96 per cent. Even if that were put aside, the fact is that the impact on the nutrient load in the Swan and Canning Rivers - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr M.J. Birney : How does the office boy know all this? The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
The SPEAKER : I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The Swan River Trust report states - The overall contribution of nutrients from groundwater reaching the Swan-Canning river system is estimated to be less than 16% of the total nutrients entering the estuary. That statement was also reflected in a review of best management practice for improving the urban water quality on the Swan coastal plain in March 2004. From what we know of the best available scientific reports, of all the ground water that goes into the Swan and Canning estuaries, less than 16 per cent of the nutrient load is from ground water. I do not have specific figures on how much of that comes from fertilisers and septic tanks, but it could be estimated to be about 10 per cent. If 96 per cent of the areas have been provided with sewers, and roughly 10 per cent of that load is coming from septic tanks, less than one per cent of the nutrient load can be associated with the remaining infill sewerage work. Members opposite had a great time when Richard Court flew around in a helicopter and said that the infill sewerage program, which is a good program, would fix the issue of nutrients in the Swan and Canning Rivers. That is not true now and it was not true then. Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
Scientific evidence indicates that the nutrient load in the Swan River, which is a major concern to the government, has a range of sources. The nutrient load in ground water from the catchment of the Swan and Canning Rivers is up to 16 per cent, without the infill sewerage program. Therefore, the program is going ahead. About 96 per cent of that program has been completed and any suggestion that the timing of that program has caused a negative impact is without any scientific foundation. It is another ridiculous statement that the opposition wants to make. They are all competing with the Leader of the Opposition, who made an absolutely ridiculous comment about wanting to meet the Pope’s partner. The rest of the opposition members are falling into line and competing to see how ridiculous they can make their statements.
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.