❓ Mr. Redman questions the Minister about potential disallowance of water regulations and associated fees. The Minister defends the fees as necessary under the National Water Initiative, committing to further consultation and potential refunds.
AnsweredQoN 549Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RIGHTS IN WATER AND IRRIGATION AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2007 - DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS
I refer to the three motions currently in the Legislative Council calling for the disallowance of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Amendment Regulations 2007. (1) How will the minister respond to these motions if they are successful in the Council? (2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
I refer to the three motions currently in the Legislative Council calling for the disallowance of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Amendment Regulations 2007. (1) How will the minister respond to these motions if they are successful in the Council? (2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(1) How will the minister respond to these motions if they are successful in the Council? (2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(1) How will the minister respond to these motions if they are successful in the Council? (2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(2) Will he support a moratorium on the issuance of water licence fees by the Department of Water and their payment until the issue is resolved in the Council? (3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(3) Will he refund the hundreds of water licence holders who have already been invoiced under his government’s inequitable water regulations? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
(1)-(3) Does the member support the National Water Initiative? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr D.T. Redman : Yes. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Good; and he is quite clear that the National Water Initiative requires that we recoup the cost of administering water licences? Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr D.T. Redman : Yes, but in a fair and equitable way. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Absolutely, and that is why we consulted communities right across the state. A pamphlet was put out that suggested the exact dollar amounts of the fee, and it was adjusted in light of that. We cannot have the National Water Initiative if we do not actually have a licensing fee arrangement that covers the cost of that licensing procedure. Clearly, the government does not have the numbers in the other place, and it never has. If the other parties are determined to throw out the regulations that enable those fees to be charged, we will certainly make sure that we have other fees that we can introduce. I have said all along that we are open to discussion with all the various stakeholders and both parties - I am certainly doing that - to make sure that we can put in place a regime that is acceptable. Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Basically, there is a very large acceptance of fees. The difficulty is that some people are saying that their neighbours should be charged more and that they should be charged less, and then the neighbours say that they should pay less but that the other people should pay more. That is the fight we have. The member can take sides and say that his constituents should pay less, and that because the Harvey irrigators and those in the Gascoyne and the Ord valley are not in his area, they can pay more. That is the difficulty we have. Therefore, I give a commitment to work with all parties to make sure that we can put in place a licensing fee arrangement that has a wide level of acceptance. However, at the end of the day there is a requirement under the NWI that we move forward with water reform for the benefit of all users of water. Irrigators, companies and people in residential areas all need to benefit from water reform. This is a key element of water reform. While the regulations are in place, people are required by law to pay the fee. However, clearly we will refund fees to people. If there is a variation under the new arrangement and people have paid more, clearly I will do what I can to ensure that an equitable arrangement is put in place, which in large part would mean refunding or offering a credit to those people who have paid more when there may be a rearrangement of the licence fee. Equally, if a higher fee is applied and it means that some people who have already paid the fees have paid less, we will seek that they pay more. Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Are you including the Perth bores? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Is the member saying that we should tax all the people who are using water? Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why not? Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Because I do not want to tax all the farm dams in his electorate! We must have a bit of equity in it! There are tens of thousands of farms across the wheatbelt and I do not want to charge those people. The member might, but I am not going to.
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.