❓ Mr Birney questions the transfer of water-related acts from the Minister for the Environment to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, querying the timing, rationale, and why the Premier wasn't assigned responsibility. Dr Edwards explains the decision was to streamline water management and clarify ministerial roles.
AnsweredQoN 208Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s answer in this house yesterday, in which she advised that she no longer has control of a large number of water-related acts of Parliament. (1) When did the government decide to transfer responsibility for these water-related acts away from the Minister for the Environment? (2) Why did the government make this decision? (3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(1) When did the government decide to transfer responsibility for these water-related acts away from the Minister for the Environment? (2) Why did the government make this decision? (3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(2) Why did the government make this decision? (3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(1) When did the government decide to transfer responsibility for these water-related acts away from the Minister for the Environment? (2) Why did the government make this decision? (3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(2) Why did the government make this decision? (3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(3) Given that the Premier is the official Minister for Water Resources, will the minister advise why responsibility for these water-related acts was not transferred to the Premier? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
I thank the member for the question. This is really one of the significant issues of the day! (1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
(1)-(3) The decision was flagged during the election campaign. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : Members opposite asked the question, and now they will get the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
The SPEAKER : Order! It is not possible for the minister to answer when everyone on my left is commenting at various levels of loudness. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : This decision was flagged during the election campaign, when the Premier made an announcement that we needed a much more strategic approach to water, and a longer term view, and that he would be playing a greater role. It was subsequently discussed when the government was re-elected and ministers were reappointed. In the month between 11 March and 12 April, the exact configuration of how this change would be made was discussed. One of the issues we uncovered was that the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ties in with who the minister responsible should be, and locks that same minister into a number of other water-related acts. For those reasons, a whole host of water-related acts, including the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 - I can get the list for the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants it - were transferred on 12 April to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources. If I said something different yesterday, I apologise. I am sure I said “the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources”. Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr K.D. Hames : The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act rightly belongs to the people who police the act, ex-Water and Rivers Commission staff, who are now under your control. Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS : That is absolutely correct, and people in that department, through their legislation, are reporting to two ministers. It is a nice, neat and elegant solution. Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
Why was this done? It was done to make sure that the one minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources, sitting to my right, had under his control all the water industry-related matters. He now has responsibility for the Bunbury and Busselton water boards as well as the Water Corporation, whereas previously the Minister for the Environment, in a very quirky arrangement, had the Bunbury and Busselton water boards. It is now a much more satisfactory arrangement. In addition, the minister has responsibility for the water resource, and the Minister for the Environment has a much greater clarification of the role of regulator. These are very sensible arrangements, and they will deliver a much better water product for the state.
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.