❓ Mr Logan questions the Minister about a water trade deal involving Logue Brook Dam, alleging financial mismanagement by the Water Corporation. The Minister defends the decision, citing drought conditions and agricultural needs.
AnsweredQoN 659Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LOGUE BROOK DAM — WATER TRADE DEAL
I draw the minister’s attention to his response to question without notice 784 in the Legislative Council in which the minister advised that the Water Corporation paid Harvey Water $25.8 million for the value of water in the 2008 Logue Brook Dam water trade deal. (1) Why will the minister not tell us how much Harvey Water paid to buy back exactly the same water in the recent trade with the Water Corporation? (2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS
I draw the minister’s attention to his response to question without notice 784 in the Legislative Council in which the minister advised that the Water Corporation paid Harvey Water $25.8 million for the value of water in the 2008 Logue Brook Dam water trade deal. (1) Why will the minister not tell us how much Harvey Water paid to buy back exactly the same water in the recent trade with the Water Corporation? (2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(1) Why will the minister not tell us how much Harvey Water paid to buy back exactly the same water in the recent trade with the Water Corporation? (2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(1) Why will the minister not tell us how much Harvey Water paid to buy back exactly the same water in the recent trade with the Water Corporation? (2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(2) Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that he does not know how much the Water Corporation sold the water for, or that the Water Corporation simply gave the water to Harvey Water? (3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(3) The minister’s response that the price for the water is “yet to be determined” is so illogical and irresponsible that it is unbelievable. Will the minister now tell the Parliament the truth behind this water trade deal? (4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(4) When the minister lets the Water Corporation throw away money like this, is it not inevitable that bills will go up even more savagely? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
I thank the member for Cockburn for his question. (1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
(1)–(4) If I may I will just put a bit of fact behind this question. As members know, this government made an election promise to reserve Logue Brook Dam water for recreational use. The 5.2 gigalitres was a Water Corporation allocation. As members well know, there has been a very dry situation in Western Australia, which has particularly impacted on irrigators in the Harvey region. A very important decision was made about the potential for that water source to be used for the very much needed agricultural irrigation scheme in Harvey, as members would know that there was an allocation for Harvey Water over the whole irrigation area. All growers were faced with a 34 per cent reduction in last year’s allocation. I consulted with the member for Murray–Wellington and recreational groups about the commitment that the government had made to recreation. Do members know what they said to me? They said, “Minister, when it comes to agriculture versus recreation, we understand that agriculture comes first.” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS : Mr Deputy Speaker, it made very good sense. After discussions and negotiations with the Water Corporation and Harvey Water, a decision was made that 5.2 gigalitres would be given over to Harvey Water. The precedent for the price is around 29c or 30c a kilolitre of water, although negotiations on the price have not been finalised. Once that allocation is made to Harvey Water, as a cooperative of growers, the distribution of water will be by auction. That is the way that the cooperative does business. In fact, in that way, the largest commercial use of that water is distributed appropriately. Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Mr F.M. Logan : It’s a disgrace! You’ve given $25 million away. The water has been given away and it hasn’t been paid for. Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
Dr G.G. JACOBS : The member for Cockburn has not realised that water has a value in this state. Water is a finite resource and we are faced with a very drying situation. Harvey Water is looking for water for agriculture for its growers. If the Water Corporation has an allocation that it is prepared to trade to Harvey Water, that is a good use of the finite water resource in Western Australia. In fact, it puts fruit and vegetables on members’ tables.
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.