default text | larger text
top navagation imagemap Link to home page Link to search page Link to help page Link to sitemap page Link to website privacy statement Link to contacts page Link to disclaimer/copyright information
 

17 May 2006


AUDIT FINDS WATERWISE REBATE PROGRAM HAS ACHIEVED SOME SUCCESS, THOUGH THE EXTENT IS UNCLEAR

The Government’s Waterwise Rebate Program, launched in 2003, to encourage Western Australians to use water more efficiently, has achieved water savings – though just how much, and the cost of the water saved, is open to question.

An audit of the rebate program, by WA Auditor General Des Pearson, has questioned the key assumption used to calculate the savings and found that public statements from various government sources have overstated the extent of those savings.

The findings of the audit of the Waterwise initiative, which to date has paid out 225,000 rebates on 13 different water savings products to almost 190,000 households and at cost of $26 million, are detailed in Mr Pearson’s first Public Sector Performance Report for 2006, tabled in Parliament today.

The report’s findings included:

  • The Water Corporation has not established whether the rebate program has made Western Australians more conservative in their use of water; however the Corporation has been effective in making the public aware of the program with 87% of surveyed respondents advising that they knew of the program.
  • Public statements had overstated the amount of water saved through the rebate program, with estimated savings based on the assumption that persons who purchased a water saving device and received a rebate only purchased the product because of the rebate – it does not reflect those persons who would have purchased the product anyway.
  • The cost of water saved is difficult to estimate because of the unreliable key assumption, but analysis by the Auditor General suggests that the rebate program is cost-effective relative to new water sources such as desalination.
  • The rebate program lacks specific goals and targets which would give a clearer picture of how successful it was, enable a more focused delivery of available funds, and clarify the purpose and success of those types of rebate that have a very low uptake or that do not appear to be cost effective.
  • A review of past reports from the Water Corporation to the State Water Council indicated a need to improve the information provided and for more evidentiary support for any changes to the program.
  • Public uptake of the Waterwise rebates has varied considerably amongst the 13 products – uptake has been very high for several of the products but for seven of the products the projected and actual uptake has been so low as to make them almost inconsequential to the success of the program.
  • Two products, water saving washing machines and soil wetting agents have been particularly popular with the public, accounting for nearly 80% of the number of rebates paid (washing machines made up 75%, or $19.4 million, of the total values of rebates).
  • Garden bores have made up just 6% of rebates but approximately 60% of the estimated total water saved.

Also included in the first Public Sector Performance Report are the results of an audit of the regulation of animal feedstuffs, hormonal growth promotants, and veterinary chemicals.

Key findings included:

  • Feedstuffs and hormone growth promotants (HGP) are regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) in accordance with legislation and national guidelines; with almost its entire activity in this area is focused on managing Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or ‘Mad Cow’ disease and the balance of activity focused on the regulation of HGP in beef cattle.
  • DAFWA does not have a response plan in the event that feedstuffs contaminated with Restricted Animal Material (any material that contains tissue from an animal and the cause of BSE) are fed to ruminants (for example, cattle, buffalo, deer, sheep) – a national body with DAFWA representatives has been established to address this matter but the date of completion is unknown.
  • WA has not had ‘control of use’ regulations for managing veterinary chemicals since 1995 and in the absence of regulations any licensed veterinary chemical can be used in WA for practically any purpose – without ‘control of use’ regulations DAFWA has no control over the inappropriate use of veterinary chemicals.

Ends/.


Media Contact: Peter Villiers, Manager Reporting and Communications
Tel: (08) 9222 7558. Mobile: 0417 936 171 Fax: (08) 9322 5664
4th Floor Dumas House 2 Havelock Street West Perth


Home Page | About the Office | Reports To Parliament | Performance Indicators | Other Publications
Media Statements | Work in Progress | Contact OAG | Resource Links | Annual Report | Job Vacancies

Information Copyright © 1996-2008 Office of the Auditor General
Disclaimer/Copyright | Privacy Declaration