❓ WA Treasurer criticises the federal government's requirement for matching state funds for Natural Heritage Trust grants, arguing it centralises power and disadvantages WA financially. He calls for a fairer distribution of GST revenue and greater flexibility in special purpose payments.
AnsweredQoN 799Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST GRANTS, MATCHING STATE FUNDS
I refer to reports that the federal Government’s Natural Heritage Trust mark 2 will require matching state funds, and ask - (1) Was the State consulted about this issue? (2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER
I refer to reports that the federal Government’s Natural Heritage Trust mark 2 will require matching state funds, and ask - (1) Was the State consulted about this issue? (2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
(1) Was the State consulted about this issue? (2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
(2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
(1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding.
I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding.
(1) Was the State consulted about this issue? (2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
(2) How does it bear on the review of commonwealth-state financial relations? Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
Mr RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
(1)-(2) The Howard Government’s proposed second round of Natural Heritage Trust grants is predicated on matching state funds. This condition was not announced before the federal election and it is yet another example of the federal Government’s trying to annex the budgets of the States and Territories. We have in Canberra the most centralist Government this country has experienced since the Second World War, when income-taxing powers were taken from the States. As a result of the goods and services tax and the requirement to abolish some state revenue sources, Western Australia is now more financially dependent on the Commonwealth than ever before. Under the Howard Government, the underlying level of special purpose or tied grants to the States has reached a record 51 per cent of commonwealth grants. That is the highest level since Federation. That means much of our funding is tied to meeting commonwealth rather than Western Australian objectives. The state and commonwealth Treasurers will hold a meeting on Friday at which I will press for more flexibility in special purpose payments to the States and a more equitable distribution of general-purpose grants, including the GST. Together with Victoria and New South Wales, this State has commissioned an independent review of commonwealth-state financial relations in general and the Commonwealth Grants Commission in particular. The commission was established in 1933, in part because of the desire of the majority of this State’s population to secede from the Federation because of the raw deal the State was receiving. The commission is now not helping Western Australia. That is illustrated by the fact that 70 years later, this State is receiving $354 million less than it did nine years ago as a result of the commission’s processes. This State’s submission to the independent review makes it clear that the current system of grants distribution is a disincentive to economic development because it takes no account of the infrastructure and other costs borne by Western Australian taxpayers to support development. The Government wonders how the commission can recognise that it is more costly for a State the size of Western Australia to provide nurses, teachers and police officers, yet also draw the perverse conclusion that it is cheaper here than in other States to provide hospitals, schools and police stations. Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding. [See paper No 1311.]
Not only are we not getting our proper share of goods and services tax money and general purpose grants from the Commonwealth, but also, if we take account of the total commonwealth draw from this State in tax and balance that with total commonwealth expenditure in this State, in both direct expenditure and grants to the State, we contribute $2.7 billion to the rest of the Federation every year. That is a subsidy of $1 455 per head of population from Western Australia to the rest of the Federation. That is the largest subsidy of any State in the Commonwealth. We will be taking this case to the Treasurer’s council on Friday and we will see just how reform minded Peter Costello really is. Is he prepared to tackle this fundamental and longstanding problem in commonwealth-state financial relations? I want to say to Peter Costello that if he wants to back a winner for a change, perhaps he should back Western Australia and its economic prospects. I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding.
I table Western Australia’s submission to the review of commonwealth-state funding.
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.