❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the Commonwealth government's responsibility for unexploded bombs in Albany Harbour. The Minister accuses the Commonwealth of avoiding responsibility despite admitting negligence.
AnsweredQoN 268Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ALBANY HARBOUR - UNEXPLODED BOMBS
Can the minister please update the house on the latest claims by the commonwealth government in its attempt to avoid responsibility for the unexploded bombs in Albany harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
Can the minister please update the house on the latest claims by the commonwealth government in its attempt to avoid responsibility for the unexploded bombs in Albany harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
As members will be aware, the farce continues. Yesterday, a four-week trial of this matter commenced in the Supreme Court, having been remitted from the High Court, where the federal government had wanted to have it transferred. Some interesting issues arose yesterday. There was a series of acknowledgments by the federal government. I say to the member for Albany: cheer up a little; all is not lost. He is looking very sad because he had to wear a Melbourne beanie into caucus today! There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: As members will be aware, the farce continues. Yesterday, a four-week trial of this matter commenced in the Supreme Court, having been remitted from the High Court, where the federal government had wanted to have it transferred. Some interesting issues arose yesterday. There was a series of acknowledgments by the federal government. I say to the member for Albany: cheer up a little; all is not lost. He is looking very sad because he had to wear a Melbourne beanie into caucus today! There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
As members will be aware, the farce continues. Yesterday, a four-week trial of this matter commenced in the Supreme Court, having been remitted from the High Court, where the federal government had wanted to have it transferred. Some interesting issues arose yesterday. There was a series of acknowledgments by the federal government. I say to the member for Albany: cheer up a little; all is not lost. He is looking very sad because he had to wear a Melbourne beanie into caucus today! There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: As members will be aware, the farce continues. Yesterday, a four-week trial of this matter commenced in the Supreme Court, having been remitted from the High Court, where the federal government had wanted to have it transferred. Some interesting issues arose yesterday. There was a series of acknowledgments by the federal government. I say to the member for Albany: cheer up a little; all is not lost. He is looking very sad because he had to wear a Melbourne beanie into caucus today! There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
As members will be aware, the farce continues. Yesterday, a four-week trial of this matter commenced in the Supreme Court, having been remitted from the High Court, where the federal government had wanted to have it transferred. Some interesting issues arose yesterday. There was a series of acknowledgments by the federal government. I say to the member for Albany: cheer up a little; all is not lost. He is looking very sad because he had to wear a Melbourne beanie into caucus today! There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
There were some very interesting admissions on the part of the commonwealth yesterday. It admitted, firstly, that it dropped the bombs in the harbour. It admitted, secondly, that the dropping of the bombs by the Army and Navy personnel was negligent. It acknowledged, thirdly, that it was vicariously liable for the conduct of the Army and Navy personnel. It then denied all responsibility, because it said, “We’re the commonwealth. We don’t have a duty of care.” That is an extraordinary situation. Point of Order Mr J.H.D. DAY : This answer clearly appears to be canvassing a current judicial proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of previous rulings by the Speaker, I would have thought it was out of order. The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
The SPEAKER : The fact that this case is in a court where a judge, and no jury, is presiding over the proceedings means that the chances of damage being incurred by the airing of this matter are minimal, in my view. However, to stray into what a court will decide about evidence that is given does, I think, stray into breaching the rules regarding cases being heard that should not be commented upon. I urge the minister to stick to the facts and to not make assumptions about what people might or might not determine from evidence. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I was simply outlining the nature of the case being put by the commonwealth, which, as I say, is quite an extraordinary case, acknowledging that it has done all these things, that what it did was wrong, but that it in fact has no duty of care. Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Absolutely. I was quite surprised to read in The West Australian - I presume, of course, that it is true - that the defence minister, Mr Nelson, said, in acknowledging that millions of dollars had been spent on litigation, that these legal expenses had been incurred so far to try to keep the case out of the court. However, we know that that is complete and utter nonsense. The conduct of the commonwealth has been anything other than cooperative. In one instance, it sought discovery from more than 14 agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, which one would not normally expect would know anything about bombs in Albany harbour. This case will go on. The chief executive officer of the Albany Port Authority, which is a small port authority undergoing a lot of changes, had to absent himself from active duties at the port for four weeks to sit in the court and be present as the client. That just goes to show the cavalier nature in which the federal government is treating this matter and, indeed, the penalty that we in Western Australia are paying to get some justice and to get the commonwealth to accept that it has a duty of care to Western Australians.
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.