❓ Pilbara local governments seek compensation due to State Agreement Acts impacting revenue. Government requires councils to demonstrate overall financial loss before considering compensation, highlighting available funds through other schemes.
AnsweredQoN 617Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the comments by the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development and the Pilbara - I am sure he will be aware who that is - in Port Hedland on 15 October this year when she said that the Premier had told her no revenue stream would be made available to Pilbara local governments, and I ask - (1) Does that statement accurately reflect the Government’s policy on this matter? (2) If so, why did the Treasurer write to me in October last year stating the exact opposite? (3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(1) Does that statement accurately reflect the Government’s policy on this matter? (2) If so, why did the Treasurer write to me in October last year stating the exact opposite? (3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(2) If so, why did the Treasurer write to me in October last year stating the exact opposite? (3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(1) Does that statement accurately reflect the Government’s policy on this matter? (2) If so, why did the Treasurer write to me in October last year stating the exact opposite? (3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(2) If so, why did the Treasurer write to me in October last year stating the exact opposite? (3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(3) If not, what is the Government’s policy on this matter - the one the Treasurer wrote and advised me about, or the one put forward by the other minister? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
(1)-(3) The various Pilbara councils have written to the Government seeking compensation for what they regard as the effects on their revenues of state agreement Act provisions - many of them of long standing - which require rating on only the unimproved value of the state agreement projects, not the improved value. The Government has taken the position that if the councils can demonstrate that they have indeed suffered a detriment, the Government would consider the question of compensation, but unfortunately the councils have looked only at the difference between rates on unimproved value and improved value but have not looked at the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is all the properties in the towns that are occupied by the employees of the said projects which generate rates, all the businesses in the towns that would not be there but for the projects which generate rates, the companies that have contributed infrastructure to the towns and the companies that have contributed through normalisation payments and so on. Frankly, when the entire balance is looked at, no council has been able to demonstrate that it has suffered a loss. That is the position. If the councils cannot demonstrate that they have suffered a loss overall, there will be no payment. My colleague the Minister for State Development has reminded me that a review is being conducted on this issue in his portfolio, together with the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. We have changed the policy regarding the provision of these concessions on local government rates and state agreements and we do not now include those sorts of provisions in matters that we negotiate for the future. I know that funds are available to the Town of Port Hedland through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the Port Hedland enhancement scheme, funds are available for community projects through the regional fund and funds are available to it through the Pilbara partnership for community projects. The Port Hedland council has to stop playing politics with this issue and get on and look after the interests of the community. Money is available and there is work to be done. The council is denying the community the benefit of that work while ever it plays politics on this issue. Together, the companies, the Port Hedland council and the Government have the resources and we know the needs of the community. Therefore, we should be doing something about meeting those community needs and abandoning this sterile argument about whether Port Hedland has been disadvantaged by the iron ore industry doing so marvellously under state agreement Acts. The fact is that Port Hedland has benefited tremendously from the presence of the mining industry. Port Hedland has prosperity problems. With all the growth that is occurring, there are community needs. Resources are available through the regional fund and through the Pilbara partnership fund. Resources are also available for the Port Hedland enhancement scheme. Let us get on and use those resources together to meet the needs of the community and stop this sterile argument.
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.