❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses storm damage in the south coastal region, seeking information on damage assessments, disaster declaration, and potential state funding. The Minister acknowledges the damage but cites data limitations and funding constraints due to drought.
AnsweredQoN 907Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
STORM DAMAGE, SOUTH COASTAL AREA
Given the severe widespread damage caused by the recent storms in the south coastal region - (1) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of the damage in dollar terms to infrastructure in the area? (2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE
Given the severe widespread damage caused by the recent storms in the south coastal region - (1) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of the damage in dollar terms to infrastructure in the area? (2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(1) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of the damage in dollar terms to infrastructure in the area? (2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(1) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of the damage in dollar terms to infrastructure in the area? (2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(2) Has the minister received a preliminary assessment of damage to crops in the area in dollar terms? (3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(3) Has the minister declared the region a natural disaster area? (4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(4) If not, why not? (5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(5) What funding will the State Government provide to assist those financially affected, including small business enterprises in the region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
(1)-(5) The preliminary information that I have received relating to infrastructure is sketchy at this stage, and no dollar values are attached to them. I have received some information relating to crop losses, but not containing a dollar value, although I expect the cost of the damage to be extremely high. I do not want to speculate on what that cost might be. One of the difficulties for us at this stage, and one of the things that we have not quite got around in our analysis, is what proportion of the damage was caused by hail and what proportion by storm and tempest. We need to understand that, because hail is an insurable loss and storm and tempest are not. I have not declared the area a natural disaster area. That is not my function; it falls within the ambit of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Natural disaster is a FESA responsibility. However, I have advised my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services that we will provide any preliminary data that we get in order to assist her in her consideration of that issue. The level of state funding depends upon our assessment of the material that we are able to access. I have already said publicly, so it is no secret, that the State’s capacity to assist these farmers is extremely limited, because all of the reserves we had available have been consumed by the drought. However, we are looking at a precedent in Queensland involving similar circumstances in which the Queensland Government provided significant assistance for infrastructure assistance and the Commonwealth came in with a crop replanting grant at short notice. We will look at that precedent extremely carefully. It is possible - perhaps I should not say this - that the threshold for natural disaster assistance may have been reached. The threshold per local government authority is something of the order of $2.11 million. Given the reports that I have received, it is possible that local government authorities may have suffered damage that has cost much more than that to address. The issue of small business assistance is interesting, because in the Queensland example the Commonwealth provided assistance of $10 000 for each small business that met its criteria. We need to analyse what parallels exist between the Queensland case in 1999-2000 and the Western Australian case.
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.