❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Minister regarding local government rating practices for resource projects, specifically unimproved vs. gross rental values. The Minister's response is non-committal, highlighting ongoing discussions and the need to balance local benefits with state-wide economic prospects.
AnsweredQoN 1300Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINING ROYALTIES
Yesterday in question time, the minister advised the House that he did not support mining royalties being returned to regions from whence they were generated. However, he neglected to comment on local government rates, which was also part of the question. Again I ask - Point of Order Hon TOM STEPHENS: The question misrepresents me. Is it a breach of standing orders to be misrepresented in a question? The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I am sure members would like to hear the end of the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon NORMAN MOORE: I hope Hon Kim Chance comes back pretty soon! (1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS
Yesterday in question time, the minister advised the House that he did not support mining royalties being returned to regions from whence they were generated. However, he neglected to comment on local government rates, which was also part of the question. Again I ask - Point of Order Hon TOM STEPHENS: The question misrepresents me. Is it a breach of standing orders to be misrepresented in a question? The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I am sure members would like to hear the end of the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon NORMAN MOORE: I hope Hon Kim Chance comes back pretty soon! (1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I am sure members would like to hear the end of the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon NORMAN MOORE: I hope Hon Kim Chance comes back pretty soon! (1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I am sure members would like to hear the end of the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon NORMAN MOORE: I hope Hon Kim Chance comes back pretty soon! (1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(1) Does the minister support the continuation of the current practice used in state agreement Acts to allow local authorities to rate resource projects only on the unimproved values rather than on the gross rental value? (2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(2) If he supports the continuation of this rating system, can he explain why? (3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(3) If he does not support the system, what does he propose should be put in its place? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
(1)-(3) Currently, there is an opportunity to look at local councils’ rating arrangements for resource projects. Some work that is already being done is producing for local councils agreements with resource companies on rating strategies that are providing a benefit to those local communities. The wider policy question will always be available for local governments and the State Government to discuss and negotiate on and then determine whether arrangements can be struck with the resource sector that do not destroy job opportunities for the whole State. It is important that a benefit be returned from our resources not only to the State but also to the people of the regions from which it comes. Any local council that believes that a resource development is causing additional cost over and above the benefit to its locality has an opportunity to put the justification for that case to the State Government. We consistently ask local councils to quantify the cost of a resource project to them as opposed to a combined total of cost and benefit that is in the negative. As far as I know, we have not yet received any specific documented, detailed submission that presents the fact that the resource development is delivering more cost than benefit to any local council. There is always that opportunity. The State will not do anything to destroy the economic prospects of the resource sector. On the contrary, it will do everything to facilitate and encourage it. That includes ensuring that its relationship with local councils continues to be strong.
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.