❓ Opposition questions the Premier about using increased mining royalties to offset rising household costs and address concessions for mining companies. Premier rejects a freeze on charges but commits to moderate future increases and addressing rate concessions.
AnsweredQoN 328Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BHP BILLITON AND RIO TINTO — REMOVAL OF CONCESSIONAL ROYALTY RATE
Before I ask my question I extend, on behalf of the state Parliamentary Labor Party, our condolences to the families and friends of those service people who died on duty in Afghanistan and to the families and friends of those mining executives, many of whom I had met, who died in the plane crash in Africa. My question without notice to my new good friend, the Premier, is in the light of yesterday’s announcement that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have agreed to pay the royalty rate for iron ore fines of 5.625 per cent, removing the concessional rate of 3.75 per cent, and that this decision will add an extra $1.067 billion in revenue over the forward estimates. (1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Before I ask my question I extend, on behalf of the state Parliamentary Labor Party, our condolences to the families and friends of those service people who died on duty in Afghanistan and to the families and friends of those mining executives, many of whom I had met, who died in the plane crash in Africa. My question without notice to my new good friend, the Premier, is in the light of yesterday’s announcement that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have agreed to pay the royalty rate for iron ore fines of 5.625 per cent, removing the concessional rate of 3.75 per cent, and that this decision will add an extra $1.067 billion in revenue over the forward estimates. (1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
My question without notice to my new good friend, the Premier, is in the light of yesterday’s announcement that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have agreed to pay the royalty rate for iron ore fines of 5.625 per cent, removing the concessional rate of 3.75 per cent, and that this decision will add an extra $1.067 billion in revenue over the forward estimates. (1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
My question without notice to my new good friend, the Premier, is in the light of yesterday’s announcement that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have agreed to pay the royalty rate for iron ore fines of 5.625 per cent, removing the concessional rate of 3.75 per cent, and that this decision will add an extra $1.067 billion in revenue over the forward estimates. (1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(1) Will the Premier now immediately put a moratorium on any further rises in taxes and fees, in particular electricity and water charges, to allow Western Australian families to absorb the record increases that the government has already imposed on them? (2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(2) Will the agreements end local government rate concessions for BHP and Rio Tinto and deal with third party access issues and rail access disputes; and, if so, what are these details? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(3) If no to (1) and (2), why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
(1)–(3) Yesterday’s agreement was a historic agreement and a very good outcome for the state and a very good outcome for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. I am not proposing to do what the Leader of the Opposition suggests—that is, to put a freeze on any charges for public services. To do so would simply re-create the problem that we have nearly solved. We are nearly back to getting a cost-reflective tariff on electricity and water. To simply put a freeze on that now would re-create the problem that this state has had to deal with over the past three to four years. That is not the way to proceed. However, I make the comment that this, along with some other trends, is strengthening the Western Australian government’s financial position and does, therefore, make it possible for it to do what it indicated at the time of the state budget; that is, to ensure that any future increases—by that I mean increases in the foreseeable years—will be kept to a very moderate level. But it is certainly not a freeze. I know that this government will be able to deliver on its commitment at the time of the budget that the hard decisions—the big increases in electricity and water—have been undertaken. With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
With respect to rate concessions, the drafting of the amendments to the agreement act is yet to take place. That bill will be quite detailed and I hope to introduce it when Parliament returns after the recess. It has been the policy across successive governments as agreement acts have been changed to basically do away with rate concessions or put in place a rate-equivalent payment. The hot briquetted iron agreement for Port Hedland was, I think, the first in the state to include a nominated amount of money as an alternative to the rate concession. That is the way to go. I do not support open slather on local governments rating large capital projects in their area. That is not the way to go. For example, if the local authority responsible rated the North West Shelf project, all sorts of anomalies would be created. That was one of the purposes of the agreement acts. However, having said that, major resource projects should pay a rate equivalent to reflect the services of the local authority that they use.
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.