❓ Hon. Barry House questions a Department of Water advertisement regarding water licence fees, highlighting a discrepancy in the stated majority paying less than $325. The Minister acknowledges a misprint and clarifies the intended wording.
AnsweredQoN 933Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF WATER ADVERTISING - WATER LICENCES
I draw the attention of the Minister for Water Resources to a Department of Water advertisement on page 16 of the Manjimup-Bridgetown Times on 19 September 2007 titled “The benefit of a water licence”, which says “the most you will pay for a water licence is $3 000, and the majority will pay less than $325”. (1) Will the minister explain why 1 910 licences, subject to $200 fees, which is the category less than $325, out of a total 10 168 water licences, is described as a majority in the advertisement when in fact it is 18.7 per cent? (2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE
I draw the attention of the Minister for Water Resources to a Department of Water advertisement on page 16 of the Manjimup-Bridgetown Times on 19 September 2007 titled “The benefit of a water licence”, which says “the most you will pay for a water licence is $3 000, and the majority will pay less than $325”. (1) Will the minister explain why 1 910 licences, subject to $200 fees, which is the category less than $325, out of a total 10 168 water licences, is described as a majority in the advertisement when in fact it is 18.7 per cent? (2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(1) Will the minister explain why 1 910 licences, subject to $200 fees, which is the category less than $325, out of a total 10 168 water licences, is described as a majority in the advertisement when in fact it is 18.7 per cent? (2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(1) Will the minister explain why 1 910 licences, subject to $200 fees, which is the category less than $325, out of a total 10 168 water licences, is described as a majority in the advertisement when in fact it is 18.7 per cent? (2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(2) Does the minister acknowledge that this advertisement is grossly misleading? The same advertisement on the benefit of water licences says “access to water is so valuable that it is estimated that a water licence in the south west may add up to $16 000 per hectare to property values”. (3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(3) Will the minister either provide a public reference to the methodology of the estimate or table the estimate? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(1)-(2) Regrettably, I have to advise there was a misprint in this advertisement. The wording should have read “The majority will pay $325 or less”. This is the statement the minister has made on numerous occasions and included in his correspondence. (3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
(3) Analysis of case studies and advice from experienced local real estate agents and valuers suggested that a water licence could add up to $16 000 per hectare to property value.
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.