❓ Mr Rundle questions the Minister for Water about a sewage overflow at Hollywood Specialist Centre and alleged infrastructure failures. The Minister dismisses the link, highlights a $2.7 billion water infrastructure investment, and criticises the opposition's water policy.
AnsweredQoN 252Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Water Corporation—Hollywood Specialist Centre
252. Mr Peter Rundle to
the Minister for Water:
I refer to the
serious incident of sewage overflow at Hollywood Specialist Centre, which
continues to disrupt specialist medical services more than a year later, and
the minister's failure to respond to correspondence from specialists at the
centre regarding the incident.
(1) Why has the minister failed to
respond to concerns and evidence suggesting the overflow may have been linked
to broader Water Corporation infrastructure failures, including a sinkhole,
sewer blockage and a water main rupture identified prior to the incident?
(2) Does the Minister for Water concede
that years of neglected maintenance and asset management are now contributing
to major service failures across the state?
252. Mr Peter Rundle to
the Minister for Water:
I refer to the
serious incident of sewage overflow at Hollywood Specialist Centre, which
continues to disrupt specialist medical services more than a year later, and
the minister's failure to respond to correspondence from specialists at the
centre regarding the incident.
(1) Why has the minister failed to
respond to concerns and evidence suggesting the overflow may have been linked
to broader Water Corporation infrastructure failures, including a sinkhole,
sewer blockage and a water main rupture identified prior to the incident?
(2) Does the Minister for Water concede
that years of neglected maintenance and asset management are now contributing
to major service failures across the state?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) Another Dorothy Dixer, members! We know
that the essence of that question was the word "may". There is no
evidence, in relation to that particular incident, that it was related to Water
Corp's infrastructure, but I want to say that there is $2.7 billion in this
budget for water infrastructure in the next financial year around the state to address
sourcing, distribution and waste matters, and a record uplift in maintenance on
Water Corp's budget. We have a very clear vision for water infrastructure and
water security in this state—very clear. We know that members opposite are
searching around for policies; we saw the Leader of the Opposition rifling
through his file, looking for a quick policy the other day, but I did hear the
opposition spokesperson for water on the radio. He was up in the Pilbara,
members, and he was asked about water. He was asked what he was going to do to
get on with the job, and his comments were to the effect of, "Well, they
seem to just want to put desalination units up, and I think there's an
alternative". I was waiting for it; I was waiting for him to recognise
population growth and a drying climate, and then it came: "I don't think
we should rule out dams, because I'm worried about every time there's a problem,
we seem to whack in a desalination plant." Where is the member going to
put the dams? Is he going to have a chat with the member for Warren–Blackwood
and revisit Donnelly River? Is that his proposal—in a drying climate, revisiting
dams? There is a policy vacuum, members. On this side, we have made a $2.7
billion investment in the next financial year—a record over the forward
estimates, and we know that the community recognises what we are doing to
address water security.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
that the essence of that question was the word "may". There is no
evidence, in relation to that particular incident, that it was related to Water
Corp's infrastructure, but I want to say that there is $2.7 billion in this
budget for water infrastructure in the next financial year around the state to address
sourcing, distribution and waste matters, and a record uplift in maintenance on
Water Corp's budget. We have a very clear vision for water infrastructure and
water security in this state—very clear. We know that members opposite are
searching around for policies; we saw the Leader of the Opposition rifling
through his file, looking for a quick policy the other day, but I did hear the
opposition spokesperson for water on the radio. He was up in the Pilbara,
members, and he was asked about water. He was asked what he was going to do to
get on with the job, and his comments were to the effect of, "Well, they
seem to just want to put desalination units up, and I think there's an
alternative". I was waiting for it; I was waiting for him to recognise
population growth and a drying climate, and then it came: "I don't think
we should rule out dams, because I'm worried about every time there's a problem,
we seem to whack in a desalination plant." Where is the member going to
put the dams? Is he going to have a chat with the member for Warren–Blackwood
and revisit Donnelly River? Is that his proposal—in a drying climate, revisiting
dams? There is a policy vacuum, members. On this side, we have made a $2.7
billion investment in the next financial year—a record over the forward
estimates, and we know that the community recognises what we are doing to
address water security.
Several members
interjected.
The Speaker: Members!
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.