❓ Question on Notice regarding the WA government's commitment to the National Water Initiative, specifically concerning water entitlements for irrigators in Carnarvon and the implementation of water trading. The government affirms its commitment and outlines the basis for entitlement decisions.
AnsweredQoN 319Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE — GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
(1) Is the state government still committed to the National Water Initiative signed by the Howard and Carpenter governments? (2) If yes to (1), when will the government establish irrigators’ water entitlements as property rights and set up trading in those entitlements? (3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON
(1) Is the state government still committed to the National Water Initiative signed by the Howard and Carpenter governments? (2) If yes to (1), when will the government establish irrigators’ water entitlements as property rights and set up trading in those entitlements? (3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(2) If yes to (1), when will the government establish irrigators’ water entitlements as property rights and set up trading in those entitlements? (3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(2) If yes to (1), when will the government establish irrigators’ water entitlements as property rights and set up trading in those entitlements? (3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(3) Why has the government arbitrarily reduced water entitlements for some Carnarvon growers while increasing allocations for others, rather than implement water trading? (4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(4) Given that such decisions have substantial financial implications for affected growers, on what basis have these decisions been made? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Water has provided me with the following advice — (1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(1) Yes. (2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(2) The government is considering proposed legislative changes required to create property rights and thus further facilitate trading. It is important to ensure the benefits to both the state and water users outweigh any accompanying regulatory and administrative costs. (3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(3) The process to reduce water entitlements was an equitable and transparent one, as outlined in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. Total licensed entitlements were greater than the amount of fresh water that was able to be drawn safely without causing long-term salinity increases in the aquifer. Entitlements have been reduced but they are based on metering of actual water use and salinity information over the past seven years. Actual water use has not been reduced. (4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
(4) The new entitlements are higher than actual demonstrated water use. This has minimised any financial implications. The review of entitlements in 2010 was agreed with industry and the community in 2004, and set out in the 2004 lower Gascoyne groundwater management strategy. This time span allowed the collection of seven years of metered water use and salinity data to inform the process.
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.