❓ Dr. Honey questions the Minister for Water about alleged overcharging for water services and the impact of increased water charges on larger families in developing suburbs. The Minister defends the charges, highlighting subsidies in rural areas and criticizes Dr. Honey's focus on specific suburbs.
AnsweredQoN 642Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WATER CORPORATION —
FEES AND CHARGES
642. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Water:
Mr Speaker —
Mr M. McGowan : Exhibit 1!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : Mr Speaker, I refer
to the Economic Regulation Authority report, which found that the government is
overcharging struggling Western Australian families $400 per year —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Is the question
going to the Premier?
Dr D.J. HONEY : No; it is to
the Minister for Water.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : I continue to
learn, members; I continue to learn.
The SPEAKER : Do you want to
start again, member for Cottesloe?
Dr D.J. HONEY : I do; thank
you, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER : Please explain
who the question is to.
Dr D.J. HONEY : My question is
to the Minister for Water. I refer to the Economic Regulation Authority report,
which found that the government is overcharging struggling Western Australian
families $400 per year for water services and that water prices should come
down. I further quote an article from March in The West Australian ,
which states that the Minister for Water —
� attacked the conclusions, saying
they would benefit well-heeled suburbs at the expense of poorer ones.
Can the minister confirm his
subsequent mean-spirited 40 per cent increase to Western Australian households
consuming greater than 500 kilolitres of water has hit larger families in
developing suburbs hardest, and that Baldivis, Canning Vale, Ellenbrook and
Byford are not so-called well-heeled suburbs?
Ms J.J. Shaw : Do you even
know where they are?
The SPEAKER : I know where you
are, member for Swan Hills; I call you to order for the first time.
FEES AND CHARGES
642. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Water:
Mr Speaker —
Mr M. McGowan : Exhibit 1!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : Mr Speaker, I refer
to the Economic Regulation Authority report, which found that the government is
overcharging struggling Western Australian families $400 per year —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Is the question
going to the Premier?
Dr D.J. HONEY : No; it is to
the Minister for Water.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : I continue to
learn, members; I continue to learn.
The SPEAKER : Do you want to
start again, member for Cottesloe?
Dr D.J. HONEY : I do; thank
you, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER : Please explain
who the question is to.
Dr D.J. HONEY : My question is
to the Minister for Water. I refer to the Economic Regulation Authority report,
which found that the government is overcharging struggling Western Australian
families $400 per year for water services and that water prices should come
down. I further quote an article from March in The West Australian ,
which states that the Minister for Water —
� attacked the conclusions, saying
they would benefit well-heeled suburbs at the expense of poorer ones.
Can the minister confirm his
subsequent mean-spirited 40 per cent increase to Western Australian households
consuming greater than 500 kilolitres of water has hit larger families in
developing suburbs hardest, and that Baldivis, Canning Vale, Ellenbrook and
Byford are not so-called well-heeled suburbs?
Ms J.J. Shaw : Do you even
know where they are?
The SPEAKER : I know where you
are, member for Swan Hills; I call you to order for the first time.
AnswerView source ↗
There were a couple of issues in the
question from the member for Cottesloe. I appreciate his new-found interest in the
suburbs of Ellenbrook and the like. That interest was not evident in his
inaugural speech, but we all learn as we progress in our journey in this
chamber. A couple of issues were raised. One was the question of wastewater
charges. The question spoke about the Water Corporation charging in excess of
cost reflectivity for wastewater charges. The member will be surprised to know
that that position existed under the previous government. Just for the
information of the member for Cottesloe, in 2016–17, under the previous
Liberal–National government, cost reflectivity for wastewater charges
in the metropolitan area was 186 per cent. In the current 2017–18
period, the figure is 188 per cent—it is only a two per cent
difference. The member for Cottesloe has tried to create great colour and
movement around this issue, but this situation existed under the previous
government in almost identical circumstances. What the member does not talk
about is that the Water Corporation charges below cost recovery for a range of
services that it provides, principally in country areas. People in the country
areas of Western Australia get significant subsidies on their water prices.
When the two are put together—the issue of cost reflectivity and Water
Corporation charges across the state—it comes in slightly under 100 per
cent. I wish the member for Cottesloe would give the full picture. If he is
advocating that we should have no more than cost reflectivity, is he
suggesting, as the ERA report did, that we should do away with subsidising
water in the country across the board and increase charges in country Western Australia
in order to deliver cost reflectivity across the state? Is that the member's
view? It certainly was not the view of the previous government—it ran a
mile from the ERA when it made these suggestions.
The other suggestion the ERA made
was that we should stop using gross rental values to determine wastewater
charges. Currently, wastewater charges move according to the value of the
property. The ERA wants a single figure across the metropolitan area.
Coincidentally, that would deliver a reduced wastewater charge for people who
live in the electorate of Cottesloe. The people of Cottesloe would get a significant
reduction in their wastewater charge. People in the suburbs that the member
mentioned in his question—Ellenbrook and elsewhere—would get an
increase. If that is what the member for Cottesloe wants, he should just
announce it as a policy position. We are very happy to argue that between now
and the next election.
The second issue the member raised
in his question was the increase in charges applied to people who use more than
500 kilolitres of water a year. Seven per cent of the population use almost 20 per
cent of scheme water. That seven per cent use more water than the Water
Corporation budgets to fall into our dams. So we actually think it is a very
good idea to encourage those people to use less water.
A suburb like Baldivis is much, much
bigger in number than the suburb, for example, of Dalkeith. In Dalkeith,
something like 20 per cent of households will be impacted upon by that change,
whereas in Baldivis, the number is less than 10 per cent.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mrs L.M. Harvey interjected.
Withdrawal of Remark
The SPEAKER : I hope you were
not referring to the minister as a drip, were you? Withdraw, and I will call
you to order for the first time.
Mrs L.M.
HARVEY : I withdraw.
Questions without
Notice Resumed
The SPEAKER : Minister, wrap
this up, please.
Mr D.J. KELLY : Member for Cottesloe,
Baldivis has more houses in it than a suburb like Dalkeith. That is why we
cannot use raw household numbers. It is much more informative to use
percentages. I am sure the member understands percentages. The other issue is
that in a suburb like Baldivis, many people live on large semirural blocks. The
member cannot assume that someone in Baldivis who is using more than 500 kilolitres
is a battler on a small standard block. They are more likely to be someone on a
large block in a semirural setting.
Who is the member for Cottesloe
really supporting? Is he interested in the battlers in Ellenbrook, or the
people in his suburbs, who do, on a higher percentage, use far more water than
people in most other suburbs in Perth?
Withdrawal of Remark
The SPEAKER : Member for North
West Central, I ask you to withdraw your remark from before.
Mr V.A.
CATANIA : I withdraw. You did not give me a chance.
The SPEAKER : I beg your
pardon?
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I withdraw.
The SPEAKER : Thank you.
question from the member for Cottesloe. I appreciate his new-found interest in the
suburbs of Ellenbrook and the like. That interest was not evident in his
inaugural speech, but we all learn as we progress in our journey in this
chamber. A couple of issues were raised. One was the question of wastewater
charges. The question spoke about the Water Corporation charging in excess of
cost reflectivity for wastewater charges. The member will be surprised to know
that that position existed under the previous government. Just for the
information of the member for Cottesloe, in 2016–17, under the previous
Liberal–National government, cost reflectivity for wastewater charges
in the metropolitan area was 186 per cent. In the current 2017–18
period, the figure is 188 per cent—it is only a two per cent
difference. The member for Cottesloe has tried to create great colour and
movement around this issue, but this situation existed under the previous
government in almost identical circumstances. What the member does not talk
about is that the Water Corporation charges below cost recovery for a range of
services that it provides, principally in country areas. People in the country
areas of Western Australia get significant subsidies on their water prices.
When the two are put together—the issue of cost reflectivity and Water
Corporation charges across the state—it comes in slightly under 100 per
cent. I wish the member for Cottesloe would give the full picture. If he is
advocating that we should have no more than cost reflectivity, is he
suggesting, as the ERA report did, that we should do away with subsidising
water in the country across the board and increase charges in country Western Australia
in order to deliver cost reflectivity across the state? Is that the member's
view? It certainly was not the view of the previous government—it ran a
mile from the ERA when it made these suggestions.
The other suggestion the ERA made
was that we should stop using gross rental values to determine wastewater
charges. Currently, wastewater charges move according to the value of the
property. The ERA wants a single figure across the metropolitan area.
Coincidentally, that would deliver a reduced wastewater charge for people who
live in the electorate of Cottesloe. The people of Cottesloe would get a significant
reduction in their wastewater charge. People in the suburbs that the member
mentioned in his question—Ellenbrook and elsewhere—would get an
increase. If that is what the member for Cottesloe wants, he should just
announce it as a policy position. We are very happy to argue that between now
and the next election.
The second issue the member raised
in his question was the increase in charges applied to people who use more than
500 kilolitres of water a year. Seven per cent of the population use almost 20 per
cent of scheme water. That seven per cent use more water than the Water
Corporation budgets to fall into our dams. So we actually think it is a very
good idea to encourage those people to use less water.
A suburb like Baldivis is much, much
bigger in number than the suburb, for example, of Dalkeith. In Dalkeith,
something like 20 per cent of households will be impacted upon by that change,
whereas in Baldivis, the number is less than 10 per cent.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mrs L.M. Harvey interjected.
Withdrawal of Remark
The SPEAKER : I hope you were
not referring to the minister as a drip, were you? Withdraw, and I will call
you to order for the first time.
Mrs L.M.
HARVEY : I withdraw.
Questions without
Notice Resumed
The SPEAKER : Minister, wrap
this up, please.
Mr D.J. KELLY : Member for Cottesloe,
Baldivis has more houses in it than a suburb like Dalkeith. That is why we
cannot use raw household numbers. It is much more informative to use
percentages. I am sure the member understands percentages. The other issue is
that in a suburb like Baldivis, many people live on large semirural blocks. The
member cannot assume that someone in Baldivis who is using more than 500 kilolitres
is a battler on a small standard block. They are more likely to be someone on a
large block in a semirural setting.
Who is the member for Cottesloe
really supporting? Is he interested in the battlers in Ellenbrook, or the
people in his suburbs, who do, on a higher percentage, use far more water than
people in most other suburbs in Perth?
Withdrawal of Remark
The SPEAKER : Member for North
West Central, I ask you to withdraw your remark from before.
Mr V.A.
CATANIA : I withdraw. You did not give me a chance.
The SPEAKER : I beg your
pardon?
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I withdraw.
The SPEAKER : Thank you.
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.