❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Environment regarding BHP's compliance with its environmental license concerning dust pollution at Port Hedland, specifically focusing on PM10 dust exceedances and reporting requirements at the Taplin Street monitoring station.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 3184Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the issue of the dust
pollution at the West End of Port Hedland, the Port Hedland Industries Council
(PHIC), local industrial projects, and specifically to the data that the Department of Water and
Environmental Regulations (DWER; the Department) holds, and that which has been received from PHIC from 2018
to the present, and to the Port Hedland air monitoring network as an instrument of DWER, and I ask:
(a) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland (BHP’s
Environmental Licence; Licence),
if there is any fugitive dust emission escaping the licensed premises resulting
in pollution or material environmental harm or serious environmental harm,
these will constitute offences by BHP under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act), unless all BHP’s Licence
conditions 2 to 25 are complied with;
(b) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must, under its Licence conditions 23
(monitoring and management response) and 24 (ambient air quality monitoring):
(i) obtain monitoring data at the Taplin Street monitoring station;
(ii) identify any exceedance in PM10 dust over
100µg/m³ (as a one hour rolling average when wind direction is between 110˚ and
320˚);
(iii) immediately on being notified of the exceedance, commence and continue all management actions as specified in the Licence for
the duration of the exceedance:
(A) including undertaking a boundary monitoring trigger
investigation to identify the source of the exceedance; and
(B) if identified to be caused from activities at
the premises, implement immediate dust abatement measures which may include, but
are not limited to, ceasing or changing iron ore handling activities;
(iv) detect against the reportable parameter any
exceedance in PM10 dust of 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average); and
(v) conduct measurements in accordance with Australian Standard
AS25800.9.1;
(c) does the Minister agree that an exceedance in PM10
dust of 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average), measured at the Taplin St monitor, would
be a “Reportable Event” under BHP’s Environmental Licence:
(i) if yes to (c), does the Minister agree that if there is a
“Reportable Event”, then BHP must, under its licence condition 25, investigate
and undertake the actions, and report in accordance with BHP’s Licence Schedule
4 (i.e. the report must be submitted by the proponent to DWER’s CEO);
(d) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must under its Licence condition 28 (record keeping), maintain accurate
and auditable books, including in respect of:
(i) the incidence of exceedances, triggering the
requirement for management action, and the management actions taken in response
under Licence condition 23; and
(ii) events reported in accordance with Licence
condition 25
(
reportable events)
which includes events where the Taplin St monitor exceeds in PM10 dust of 70µg/m³ (as
a 24 hour average);
(e) is the Minister aware that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must, under its Licence condition 30
(record keeping) - submit to the CEO of
DWER no later than 30 September each year:
(i) an annual compliance report identifying any
noncompliance with the Licence conditions; and
(ii) a monitoring report providing the results of
monitoring and any supporting records, information, reports and data as
required Licence condition 24 for the ambient air quality
monitoring at Taplin St including a comparison of monitoring results against:
(A) 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average); and
(B) 30µg/m³ (as an annual average);
(f) noting it has since been retracted and the PM10 data for Taplin St
has been expunged, is the Minister aware that by BHP’s
Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program Report
for the Taplin St monitor readings (issued via
PHIC) for 2018-19 (dated October 2019) stated and
claimed for Taplin St:
(i) the Taplin Street monitoring data capture
requirements for the full 2018-19 year had been successfully met;
(ii) “The
Taplin monitoring station did not record any days above the 24-hour average
interim guideline for PM10 of 70 μg/m³. Consequently, the interim guideline was
met at Taplin. This
is the first instance of zero days above the interim guideline for a reporting
period since implementation of the interim guideline”;
(iii) “As there
were no days in 2018-19 when the Taplin monitoring station recorded 24-hour
average concentrations of PM10 above the interim guideline of 70 μg/m³ (Section
4.1.2), no further analyses were required”;
(iv) asserted that the measure of 70 μg/m³ for a
24-hour average “applies to residential
areas east of Taplin Street” (per Table note B of Table 2-4); and
(v) asserted that the measure of 8 μg/m³ for PM2.5
in an annual average was “met” (per
Table 5-1);
(g) regarding BHP’s
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Report
for 2018-19
, is the Minister aware that all Taplin Street data and related reporting has
been replaced by a substituted report dated April 2020, so that there is now no information reported on
PM10 with respect to the Taplin Street monitor for the entire 2018-19 year;
(h) regarding the failures of the Taplin street monitor (the physical equpiment), will the Minister please advise on the nature and extent of the failures, their timings and their causes;
(i) in respect of the investigation, understood to have been undertaken by GHD into the Taplin St
monitor failures, can the Minsiter please advise:
(i) whether DWER considers that GHD qualifies as both expert and independent, for the purpose of conducting an investigation in
connection with the Taplin St monitor failures;
(ii) what information was obtained and what assessment
was made by DWER on the current or past relationships between GHD and PHIC, the latter understood as both the Council body itself and individual Members thereof; and
(iii) will DWER make this investigation publically available:
(A) if no to (i)(iii), why not;
(j) regarding the error(s) in the data of the Taplin street monitor ('Taplin Data Set'), will the Minister please:
(i) define, or identify the errors present in the data set; and
(ii) explain the cause of the error in the data;
(k) in light of the negative (readings where x<0) for PM10 and PM2.5 dust on the Taplin St monitor, can the Minister explain the potential that each of the data readings taken between 1 July 2018 and 7 September 2018, are in each
and every case understated by (or in the order of) around 5.0 μg/m³
for each reading taken:
(i) how were these negative values accounted for in BHP’s
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program report for the Taplin St monitor
readings (issued via PHIC) for 2018-19 and dated October 2019;
(l) is DWER considering
interpolating the Taplin St data
for 2018-19, given the availability of modelling, satellites, and raw data from
nearby air-quality monitors:
(i) if no to (l), for what reason; and
(ii) if yes to (l), how will this be verified or reviewed;
(m) in the light of the Taplin St failures, will the Minister make available the following:
(i) BHP’s report as to any reportable events under
Licence condition 25, relating to compliance with Licence condition 24, for the
period from 1 July 2018 to present;
(ii) BHP’s books and information, kept under Licence
condition 28, relating to compliance with Licence condition 23, for the period
from 1 July 2018 to present;
(iii) BHP’s records and reports required to be
submitted to DWER under Licence condition 30 (record keeping), for the periods 2018-19 and 2019-2020;
(iv) all PHIC underlying data from the PHIC
monitoring network; and
(v) if no to (m)(i)-(m)(iv), why not;
(n) will the Minister advise what steps have been
undertaken to investigate whether offences have been committed under the BHP
Environmental Licence conditions, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or any regulations in connection with the multiple failings of the
Taplin St monitor, and the reporting of the Taplin St monitor data:
(i) if none to (n), why not; and
(ii) if none to (n), will the Minister consider such an investigation;
(o) will the Minister provide details on any exceedences of DWER’s and Department of Health's (DoH) adopted HRA PM10 70
level for residential areas, and other exceedances of the Western Australian
legislated National Environmental Protection Measures for PM10 or PM2.5, within PHIC’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 monitoring data, across all monitors in Port Hedland:
(i) if no to (o), does the Minister intend to keep this information withheld from the Port Hedland public;
(p) does the Minister agree that in order to achieve the interim air quality
guideline in all residential areas of Port Hedland, there must be an urgent net reduction in dust
emissions from port related industries:
(i) can the Minister please provide a rationale to the answer given at (p);
(q) is the Minister aware that the DoHs Health Risk Assessment (2016) (available at: https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/-/media/Files/Corporate/general-documents/Environmental-health/Port-Hedland-Health-Assessment.pdf ) proposed a five year time period to
achieve the 24-hour PM10 of 70 µg/m3 (+10 exceedances to accommodate natural
events) in residential areas of Port Hedland:
(i) is the Minister aware that the five years given by DoH is due to expire in January 2021; and
(ii) is the Minister aware that the five year target at (q) is referenced in the Dust Management Taskforce Report (available at: https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/port-hedland-dust-taskforce---2016-report-to-government---for-public-comment.pdf?sfvrsn=dc8c6d1c_0 );
(r) in relation to issues concerning Pilbara pollution or dust, what is the nature of the relationship between Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd and DWER;
(s) will the Minister advise whether any consultant for PHIC, as a Council and in respect to individual Members, having worked in this role within the last two years, is now employed by DWER;
(t) is
the Minister aware that, in the PHIC 2018-19 Report, the increasing trend in the number of 24-hour
average concentrations above the AAQ NEPM standard at the Richardson
Street monitor, was explained as being "in part due to urban development changes that
have occurred near Richardson in the past few years":
(i) what urban development changes have occurred near the Richardson Street monitor in
the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, to support the statement at (t);
(ii) with reference to this Richardson Street monitor, what are the locations of the urban development changes, referred to at (t)(i); and
(iii) of those given at (t)(i), will the Minister please explain their impact in comparison to BHP's, using the same criteria for assessing both "urban development changes" and BHP's continuous activity at the site;
(u) is the
Minister aware that the Taplin Street monitor had recorded breaches of the
PM2.5 NEPM measure for five
consecutive (financial) years:
(i) 2014-15 Taplin (12.0 μg/m³; +50% exceedance);
(ii) 2015-16 Taplin (11.8 μg/m³;
-+47% exceedance);
(iii) 2016-17 Taplin (10.7 μg/m³; -+33% exceedance);
(iv) 2017-18 Taplin (11.3 μg/m³; +41% exceedance); and
(v) 2018-19 Taplin (9.6 μg/m³; +20% exceedance);
(v) is the Minister aware that the Richardson Street
monitor had recorded breaches of the PM2.5 NEPM measure for two consecutive (financial) years:
(i) 2017-18 Richardson (10.1 μg/m³; +26% exceedance); and
(ii) 2018-19 Richardson (12.3 μg/m³; +53% exceedance);
(w) is DWER aware
of the study undertaken for BHP by the University of Western Austrlia founded CEED foundation (Co-operative
Education for Enterprise Development) entitled “Additives to Marra Mamba Iron
Ore to Reduce Dust Emissions” (available at: http://ceed.wa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/14.Huynh_.BHP_.MarraMambaDustReduction.pdf ):
(i) and, that it states
“
Iron ore
from the Marra Mamba Iron Formation of the northwest Pilbara region (Klein and
Gole 1981) is mined by BHP. Marra Mamba iron ore is known for its ochreous or
yellowbrown colour due to a high goethite content, and possesses a higher
friability (ability to crumble) compared to other iron ore types (Lascelles
2000). This generates a greater proportion of fines <125 μm in size compared
to other ore types (Okazaki and Higuchi 2005), resulting in a greater tendency
to form dust. Dust particles, those with
diameters <150 μm (Standards Australia 2013), are created during iron ore
processing and remain suspended in the air. Fugitive dust at the PM10 fraction
(<10 μm in diameter) can be responsible for health issues (Topić and Žitnik
2012). Occupational inhalation of high iron oxide dust concentrations over the
long term can lead to benign pneumoconiosis, termed siderosis (BHP Iron Ore, 2007). The crystalline
silica present is believed to be carcinogenic towards humans (IARC 1997)”;
(x) does DWER hold a copy of the “2007 BHP Iron Ore Material Safety Data” which
is cited at (w)(i):
(i) if no to (x), is this available to the Department; and
(ii) if yes to (x), will the Minister please table a copy; and
(y) can the Minister please table any studies held by the Department, regarding the processing of Marra Mamba iron ore type
as compared to other ore types, that establishes a clear understanding of:
(i) the propensity for the generation of the PM2.5
dust fraction within the PM10 dust fraction generated from the processing;
(ii) the proportion of the PM2.5 dust fraction within
the PM10 dust fraction; and
(iii) the correlation of the PM2.5 dust fraction with
PM10 dust fraction?
Answered on
pollution at the West End of Port Hedland, the Port Hedland Industries Council
(PHIC), local industrial projects, and specifically to the data that the Department of Water and
Environmental Regulations (DWER; the Department) holds, and that which has been received from PHIC from 2018
to the present, and to the Port Hedland air monitoring network as an instrument of DWER, and I ask:
(a) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland (BHP’s
Environmental Licence; Licence),
if there is any fugitive dust emission escaping the licensed premises resulting
in pollution or material environmental harm or serious environmental harm,
these will constitute offences by BHP under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act), unless all BHP’s Licence
conditions 2 to 25 are complied with;
(b) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must, under its Licence conditions 23
(monitoring and management response) and 24 (ambient air quality monitoring):
(i) obtain monitoring data at the Taplin Street monitoring station;
(ii) identify any exceedance in PM10 dust over
100µg/m³ (as a one hour rolling average when wind direction is between 110˚ and
320˚);
(iii) immediately on being notified of the exceedance, commence and continue all management actions as specified in the Licence for
the duration of the exceedance:
(A) including undertaking a boundary monitoring trigger
investigation to identify the source of the exceedance; and
(B) if identified to be caused from activities at
the premises, implement immediate dust abatement measures which may include, but
are not limited to, ceasing or changing iron ore handling activities;
(iv) detect against the reportable parameter any
exceedance in PM10 dust of 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average); and
(v) conduct measurements in accordance with Australian Standard
AS25800.9.1;
(c) does the Minister agree that an exceedance in PM10
dust of 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average), measured at the Taplin St monitor, would
be a “Reportable Event” under BHP’s Environmental Licence:
(i) if yes to (c), does the Minister agree that if there is a
“Reportable Event”, then BHP must, under its licence condition 25, investigate
and undertake the actions, and report in accordance with BHP’s Licence Schedule
4 (i.e. the report must be submitted by the proponent to DWER’s CEO);
(d) does the Minister agree that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must under its Licence condition 28 (record keeping), maintain accurate
and auditable books, including in respect of:
(i) the incidence of exceedances, triggering the
requirement for management action, and the management actions taken in response
under Licence condition 23; and
(ii) events reported in accordance with Licence
condition 25
(
reportable events)
which includes events where the Taplin St monitor exceeds in PM10 dust of 70µg/m³ (as
a 24 hour average);
(e) is the Minister aware that under BHP’s
Environmental Licence for Port Hedland, BHP must, under its Licence condition 30
(record keeping) - submit to the CEO of
DWER no later than 30 September each year:
(i) an annual compliance report identifying any
noncompliance with the Licence conditions; and
(ii) a monitoring report providing the results of
monitoring and any supporting records, information, reports and data as
required Licence condition 24 for the ambient air quality
monitoring at Taplin St including a comparison of monitoring results against:
(A) 70µg/m³ (as a 24 hour average); and
(B) 30µg/m³ (as an annual average);
(f) noting it has since been retracted and the PM10 data for Taplin St
has been expunged, is the Minister aware that by BHP’s
Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Program Report
for the Taplin St monitor readings (issued via
PHIC) for 2018-19 (dated October 2019) stated and
claimed for Taplin St:
(i) the Taplin Street monitoring data capture
requirements for the full 2018-19 year had been successfully met;
(ii) “The
Taplin monitoring station did not record any days above the 24-hour average
interim guideline for PM10 of 70 μg/m³. Consequently, the interim guideline was
met at Taplin. This
is the first instance of zero days above the interim guideline for a reporting
period since implementation of the interim guideline”;
(iii) “As there
were no days in 2018-19 when the Taplin monitoring station recorded 24-hour
average concentrations of PM10 above the interim guideline of 70 μg/m³ (Section
4.1.2), no further analyses were required”;
(iv) asserted that the measure of 70 μg/m³ for a
24-hour average “applies to residential
areas east of Taplin Street” (per Table note B of Table 2-4); and
(v) asserted that the measure of 8 μg/m³ for PM2.5
in an annual average was “met” (per
Table 5-1);
(g) regarding BHP’s
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Report
for 2018-19
, is the Minister aware that all Taplin Street data and related reporting has
been replaced by a substituted report dated April 2020, so that there is now no information reported on
PM10 with respect to the Taplin Street monitor for the entire 2018-19 year;
(h) regarding the failures of the Taplin street monitor (the physical equpiment), will the Minister please advise on the nature and extent of the failures, their timings and their causes;
(i) in respect of the investigation, understood to have been undertaken by GHD into the Taplin St
monitor failures, can the Minsiter please advise:
(i) whether DWER considers that GHD qualifies as both expert and independent, for the purpose of conducting an investigation in
connection with the Taplin St monitor failures;
(ii) what information was obtained and what assessment
was made by DWER on the current or past relationships between GHD and PHIC, the latter understood as both the Council body itself and individual Members thereof; and
(iii) will DWER make this investigation publically available:
(A) if no to (i)(iii), why not;
(j) regarding the error(s) in the data of the Taplin street monitor ('Taplin Data Set'), will the Minister please:
(i) define, or identify the errors present in the data set; and
(ii) explain the cause of the error in the data;
(k) in light of the negative (readings where x<0) for PM10 and PM2.5 dust on the Taplin St monitor, can the Minister explain the potential that each of the data readings taken between 1 July 2018 and 7 September 2018, are in each
and every case understated by (or in the order of) around 5.0 μg/m³
for each reading taken:
(i) how were these negative values accounted for in BHP’s
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program report for the Taplin St monitor
readings (issued via PHIC) for 2018-19 and dated October 2019;
(l) is DWER considering
interpolating the Taplin St data
for 2018-19, given the availability of modelling, satellites, and raw data from
nearby air-quality monitors:
(i) if no to (l), for what reason; and
(ii) if yes to (l), how will this be verified or reviewed;
(m) in the light of the Taplin St failures, will the Minister make available the following:
(i) BHP’s report as to any reportable events under
Licence condition 25, relating to compliance with Licence condition 24, for the
period from 1 July 2018 to present;
(ii) BHP’s books and information, kept under Licence
condition 28, relating to compliance with Licence condition 23, for the period
from 1 July 2018 to present;
(iii) BHP’s records and reports required to be
submitted to DWER under Licence condition 30 (record keeping), for the periods 2018-19 and 2019-2020;
(iv) all PHIC underlying data from the PHIC
monitoring network; and
(v) if no to (m)(i)-(m)(iv), why not;
(n) will the Minister advise what steps have been
undertaken to investigate whether offences have been committed under the BHP
Environmental Licence conditions, the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or any regulations in connection with the multiple failings of the
Taplin St monitor, and the reporting of the Taplin St monitor data:
(i) if none to (n), why not; and
(ii) if none to (n), will the Minister consider such an investigation;
(o) will the Minister provide details on any exceedences of DWER’s and Department of Health's (DoH) adopted HRA PM10 70
level for residential areas, and other exceedances of the Western Australian
legislated National Environmental Protection Measures for PM10 or PM2.5, within PHIC’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 monitoring data, across all monitors in Port Hedland:
(i) if no to (o), does the Minister intend to keep this information withheld from the Port Hedland public;
(p) does the Minister agree that in order to achieve the interim air quality
guideline in all residential areas of Port Hedland, there must be an urgent net reduction in dust
emissions from port related industries:
(i) can the Minister please provide a rationale to the answer given at (p);
(q) is the Minister aware that the DoHs Health Risk Assessment (2016) (available at: https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/-/media/Files/Corporate/general-documents/Environmental-health/Port-Hedland-Health-Assessment.pdf ) proposed a five year time period to
achieve the 24-hour PM10 of 70 µg/m3 (+10 exceedances to accommodate natural
events) in residential areas of Port Hedland:
(i) is the Minister aware that the five years given by DoH is due to expire in January 2021; and
(ii) is the Minister aware that the five year target at (q) is referenced in the Dust Management Taskforce Report (available at: https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/port-hedland-dust-taskforce---2016-report-to-government---for-public-comment.pdf?sfvrsn=dc8c6d1c_0 );
(r) in relation to issues concerning Pilbara pollution or dust, what is the nature of the relationship between Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd and DWER;
(s) will the Minister advise whether any consultant for PHIC, as a Council and in respect to individual Members, having worked in this role within the last two years, is now employed by DWER;
(t) is
the Minister aware that, in the PHIC 2018-19 Report, the increasing trend in the number of 24-hour
average concentrations above the AAQ NEPM standard at the Richardson
Street monitor, was explained as being "in part due to urban development changes that
have occurred near Richardson in the past few years":
(i) what urban development changes have occurred near the Richardson Street monitor in
the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, to support the statement at (t);
(ii) with reference to this Richardson Street monitor, what are the locations of the urban development changes, referred to at (t)(i); and
(iii) of those given at (t)(i), will the Minister please explain their impact in comparison to BHP's, using the same criteria for assessing both "urban development changes" and BHP's continuous activity at the site;
(u) is the
Minister aware that the Taplin Street monitor had recorded breaches of the
PM2.5 NEPM measure for five
consecutive (financial) years:
(i) 2014-15 Taplin (12.0 μg/m³; +50% exceedance);
(ii) 2015-16 Taplin (11.8 μg/m³;
-+47% exceedance);
(iii) 2016-17 Taplin (10.7 μg/m³; -+33% exceedance);
(iv) 2017-18 Taplin (11.3 μg/m³; +41% exceedance); and
(v) 2018-19 Taplin (9.6 μg/m³; +20% exceedance);
(v) is the Minister aware that the Richardson Street
monitor had recorded breaches of the PM2.5 NEPM measure for two consecutive (financial) years:
(i) 2017-18 Richardson (10.1 μg/m³; +26% exceedance); and
(ii) 2018-19 Richardson (12.3 μg/m³; +53% exceedance);
(w) is DWER aware
of the study undertaken for BHP by the University of Western Austrlia founded CEED foundation (Co-operative
Education for Enterprise Development) entitled “Additives to Marra Mamba Iron
Ore to Reduce Dust Emissions” (available at: http://ceed.wa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/14.Huynh_.BHP_.MarraMambaDustReduction.pdf ):
(i) and, that it states
“
Iron ore
from the Marra Mamba Iron Formation of the northwest Pilbara region (Klein and
Gole 1981) is mined by BHP. Marra Mamba iron ore is known for its ochreous or
yellowbrown colour due to a high goethite content, and possesses a higher
friability (ability to crumble) compared to other iron ore types (Lascelles
2000). This generates a greater proportion of fines <125 μm in size compared
to other ore types (Okazaki and Higuchi 2005), resulting in a greater tendency
to form dust. Dust particles, those with
diameters <150 μm (Standards Australia 2013), are created during iron ore
processing and remain suspended in the air. Fugitive dust at the PM10 fraction
(<10 μm in diameter) can be responsible for health issues (Topić and Žitnik
2012). Occupational inhalation of high iron oxide dust concentrations over the
long term can lead to benign pneumoconiosis, termed siderosis (BHP Iron Ore, 2007). The crystalline
silica present is believed to be carcinogenic towards humans (IARC 1997)”;
(x) does DWER hold a copy of the “2007 BHP Iron Ore Material Safety Data” which
is cited at (w)(i):
(i) if no to (x), is this available to the Department; and
(ii) if yes to (x), will the Minister please table a copy; and
(y) can the Minister please table any studies held by the Department, regarding the processing of Marra Mamba iron ore type
as compared to other ore types, that establishes a clear understanding of:
(i) the propensity for the generation of the PM2.5
dust fraction within the PM10 dust fraction generated from the processing;
(ii) the proportion of the PM2.5 dust fraction within
the PM10 dust fraction; and
(iii) the correlation of the PM2.5 dust fraction with
PM10 dust fraction?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.