❓ The Minister addresses concerns from the Town of Port Hedland regarding revenue loss due to rating resource companies at unimproved value, highlighting the benefits these companies bring and questioning the Leader of the Opposition's stance on altering state agreements.
AnsweredQoN 853Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
It is reported in today’s The West Australian that the minister advised the Town of Port Hedland that the Government would not take any action to enable local authorities to rate resource companies operating under state agreement Acts. If it is not correctly reported, what is the Government’s current position on this matter? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
This is a fairly complex area. A number of councils, of which the Town of Port Hedland is one, have sought compensation from the State Government based on the understanding that under current state agreements they do not have the capacity to rate land at improved value and, therefore, they rate the land at unimproved value. The argument of the Town of Port Hedland is that as a result of that policy it is disadvantaged. Therefore, it seeks compensation from the Government. I explained to the Town of Port Hedland, as I explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that the simple fact is that one cannot look at one side of the ledger. I stand by that statement. One cannot look purely and simply at the opportunities or the revenue loss without looking at the benefits that mining companies bring to the Town of Port Hedland. That is what I have said to the Town of Port Hedland and that is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: This is a fairly complex area. A number of councils, of which the Town of Port Hedland is one, have sought compensation from the State Government based on the understanding that under current state agreements they do not have the capacity to rate land at improved value and, therefore, they rate the land at unimproved value. The argument of the Town of Port Hedland is that as a result of that policy it is disadvantaged. Therefore, it seeks compensation from the Government. I explained to the Town of Port Hedland, as I explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that the simple fact is that one cannot look at one side of the ledger. I stand by that statement. One cannot look purely and simply at the opportunities or the revenue loss without looking at the benefits that mining companies bring to the Town of Port Hedland. That is what I have said to the Town of Port Hedland and that is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
This is a fairly complex area. A number of councils, of which the Town of Port Hedland is one, have sought compensation from the State Government based on the understanding that under current state agreements they do not have the capacity to rate land at improved value and, therefore, they rate the land at unimproved value. The argument of the Town of Port Hedland is that as a result of that policy it is disadvantaged. Therefore, it seeks compensation from the Government. I explained to the Town of Port Hedland, as I explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that the simple fact is that one cannot look at one side of the ledger. I stand by that statement. One cannot look purely and simply at the opportunities or the revenue loss without looking at the benefits that mining companies bring to the Town of Port Hedland. That is what I have said to the Town of Port Hedland and that is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: This is a fairly complex area. A number of councils, of which the Town of Port Hedland is one, have sought compensation from the State Government based on the understanding that under current state agreements they do not have the capacity to rate land at improved value and, therefore, they rate the land at unimproved value. The argument of the Town of Port Hedland is that as a result of that policy it is disadvantaged. Therefore, it seeks compensation from the Government. I explained to the Town of Port Hedland, as I explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that the simple fact is that one cannot look at one side of the ledger. I stand by that statement. One cannot look purely and simply at the opportunities or the revenue loss without looking at the benefits that mining companies bring to the Town of Port Hedland. That is what I have said to the Town of Port Hedland and that is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
This is a fairly complex area. A number of councils, of which the Town of Port Hedland is one, have sought compensation from the State Government based on the understanding that under current state agreements they do not have the capacity to rate land at improved value and, therefore, they rate the land at unimproved value. The argument of the Town of Port Hedland is that as a result of that policy it is disadvantaged. Therefore, it seeks compensation from the Government. I explained to the Town of Port Hedland, as I explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that the simple fact is that one cannot look at one side of the ledger. I stand by that statement. One cannot look purely and simply at the opportunities or the revenue loss without looking at the benefits that mining companies bring to the Town of Port Hedland. That is what I have said to the Town of Port Hedland and that is what I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked the question, because I must tell him that I think he, as a representative of the Opposition, is less than truthful in his policy on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has created a perception throughout that region that, in some way, he will wind back the policy and adjust state agreements to enable the local government authorities to rate at an approved value or a value different from that which they are currently using. During the answer to a question from the member for Swan Hills to the Minister for State Development, Hon Clive Brown, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place interjected that state agreements are legally binding, and therefore any change to the policy relies upon the agreement of both parties. That is the factual position in which we find ourselves. The simple fact is that these are legally binding agreements, and it is pretty poor form for the Leader of the Opposition to run around the countryside saying, without consulting the resources sector, that a future coalition Government will wind them back.
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.