❓ Question regarding the veracity of statements made by the member for Stirling about potential watertable drops due to the south west Yarragadee proposal. Minister refutes the claim, citing the report directly.
AnsweredQoN 133Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
YARRAGADEE AQUIFER - STATEMENTS BY MEMBER FOR STIRLING
I refer to statements made by the member for Stirling in the house last Tuesday regarding potential watertable drops as a result of the south west Yarragadee proposal, when he said - . . . the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. Can the minister please inform the house about the veracity of the member’s statements? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
I refer to statements made by the member for Stirling in the house last Tuesday regarding potential watertable drops as a result of the south west Yarragadee proposal, when he said - . . . the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. Can the minister please inform the house about the veracity of the member’s statements? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Perth for his question. Clearly, the member for Stirling did make that statement. However, I will quote exactly what he said on Tuesday, 27 March - The reference I make is to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8. It states that the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. I have the report. I turn to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8, which states - The proposal alone may potentially result in a drawdown of 1 - 2 m - I repeat, one to two metres - in both Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully. It is not up to five metres, which the member said was stated on that page. It is simply not there. The problem we have is that when we seek to engage in rational discussion based on science, people are making untrue claims to try to further their position. When people do that, they clearly discredit their argument, because there is no basis for that at all on page 5-8, volume 1, chapter 5. It is simply not there. It referred to a one to two-metre drop. If we read on further, we see that that one to two-metre drop will be after 30 years of drawing 45 billion litres. After 30 years of drawing water, there might be a one to two-metre drop. Referring to that one to two-metre drop, the next sentence states - The drawdown may potentially affect up to 230 ha of vegetation. Over tens of thousands of hectares, it may affect up to 230 hectares after 30 years of drawdown. We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for Perth for his question. Clearly, the member for Stirling did make that statement. However, I will quote exactly what he said on Tuesday, 27 March - The reference I make is to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8. It states that the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. I have the report. I turn to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8, which states - The proposal alone may potentially result in a drawdown of 1 - 2 m - I repeat, one to two metres - in both Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully. It is not up to five metres, which the member said was stated on that page. It is simply not there. The problem we have is that when we seek to engage in rational discussion based on science, people are making untrue claims to try to further their position. When people do that, they clearly discredit their argument, because there is no basis for that at all on page 5-8, volume 1, chapter 5. It is simply not there. It referred to a one to two-metre drop. If we read on further, we see that that one to two-metre drop will be after 30 years of drawing 45 billion litres. After 30 years of drawing water, there might be a one to two-metre drop. Referring to that one to two-metre drop, the next sentence states - The drawdown may potentially affect up to 230 ha of vegetation. Over tens of thousands of hectares, it may affect up to 230 hectares after 30 years of drawdown. We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
I thank the member for Perth for his question. Clearly, the member for Stirling did make that statement. However, I will quote exactly what he said on Tuesday, 27 March - The reference I make is to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8. It states that the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. I have the report. I turn to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8, which states - The proposal alone may potentially result in a drawdown of 1 - 2 m - I repeat, one to two metres - in both Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully. It is not up to five metres, which the member said was stated on that page. It is simply not there. The problem we have is that when we seek to engage in rational discussion based on science, people are making untrue claims to try to further their position. When people do that, they clearly discredit their argument, because there is no basis for that at all on page 5-8, volume 1, chapter 5. It is simply not there. It referred to a one to two-metre drop. If we read on further, we see that that one to two-metre drop will be after 30 years of drawing 45 billion litres. After 30 years of drawing water, there might be a one to two-metre drop. Referring to that one to two-metre drop, the next sentence states - The drawdown may potentially affect up to 230 ha of vegetation. Over tens of thousands of hectares, it may affect up to 230 hectares after 30 years of drawdown. We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for Perth for his question. Clearly, the member for Stirling did make that statement. However, I will quote exactly what he said on Tuesday, 27 March - The reference I make is to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8. It states that the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. I have the report. I turn to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8, which states - The proposal alone may potentially result in a drawdown of 1 - 2 m - I repeat, one to two metres - in both Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully. It is not up to five metres, which the member said was stated on that page. It is simply not there. The problem we have is that when we seek to engage in rational discussion based on science, people are making untrue claims to try to further their position. When people do that, they clearly discredit their argument, because there is no basis for that at all on page 5-8, volume 1, chapter 5. It is simply not there. It referred to a one to two-metre drop. If we read on further, we see that that one to two-metre drop will be after 30 years of drawing 45 billion litres. After 30 years of drawing water, there might be a one to two-metre drop. Referring to that one to two-metre drop, the next sentence states - The drawdown may potentially affect up to 230 ha of vegetation. Over tens of thousands of hectares, it may affect up to 230 hectares after 30 years of drawdown. We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
I thank the member for Perth for his question. Clearly, the member for Stirling did make that statement. However, I will quote exactly what he said on Tuesday, 27 March - The reference I make is to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8. It states that the watertable will drop up to five metres in the Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully valleys. I have the report. I turn to volume 1, chapter 5, page 5-8, which states - The proposal alone may potentially result in a drawdown of 1 - 2 m - I repeat, one to two metres - in both Milyeannup Brook and Poison Gully. It is not up to five metres, which the member said was stated on that page. It is simply not there. The problem we have is that when we seek to engage in rational discussion based on science, people are making untrue claims to try to further their position. When people do that, they clearly discredit their argument, because there is no basis for that at all on page 5-8, volume 1, chapter 5. It is simply not there. It referred to a one to two-metre drop. If we read on further, we see that that one to two-metre drop will be after 30 years of drawing 45 billion litres. After 30 years of drawing water, there might be a one to two-metre drop. Referring to that one to two-metre drop, the next sentence states - The drawdown may potentially affect up to 230 ha of vegetation. Over tens of thousands of hectares, it may affect up to 230 hectares after 30 years of drawdown. We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
We have a very important proposal to make sure that water is available in the south west of Western Australia - not just in Perth, but also in the south west - and it does not help if people say things that are factually wrong. The point is that if the 45 gigalitres cannot be taken from the south west Yarragadee for environmental reasons - that is, if the environmental cost is too great - the environmental cost will be too great not only for the Water Corporation to take the water, but also for south west users to take the water. The people of the south west would suffer if the Water Corporation had not done this work and was not seeking to prove up that water is available. The issue is that it is no good people bleating that they want the water but the Water Corporation cannot have it because of environmental reasons. The same environmental standards will be applied to all people who make application to take water from the south west Yarragadee.
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.