❓ Hon Giz Watson raises concerns about the environmental impacts of dredging Fremantle Harbour, focusing on potential toxin release, Rous Head reclamation, and risks to public health and marine life. The Minister's response addresses some concerns, referencing studies and management plans.
AnsweredQoN 1282Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regards to the likely impacts of the dredging of Fremantle Harbour and channel deepening, I ask -
(1) Is existing stockpiled material at Rous Head to be mixed with the material from the Fremantle Harbour in the reclamation operation at Rous Head?
(2) If yes to (1), -
(a) what is the nature of this material;
(b) does it contain toxins; and
(c) if yes to (2) (b), what are these toxins?
(3) Will the Minister table the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) report for lot 1 on Plan 23900, produced in January 2008?
(4) If no to (1), what will be done with this stockpiled material?
(5) What is the estimated length of time that the geotextile material lining the containment wall for the reclamation area at Rous Head will remain impervious?
(6) The surface sediment samples from the Entrance Chanel shows toxin levels well above National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM), how can the Minister be sure that none of that material will enter the environment in the future?
(7) In the assessment of the suitability of Rous Head as a dumping ground, has any consideration been given to rising sea levels and or increased storm damage as a result of climate change?
(8) What volume and concentration of toxic material is likely to reach Leighton, Cottesloe or Swanbourne beaches from the reclamation operations?
(9) What volume and concentration of toxic material is likely to reach Leighton, Cottesloe or Swanbourne beaches from the off-shore dumping of dredging spoil?
(10) What are the potential health risks on local beach/water users, for both adults and children, for each of the following contaminants, -
(a) TBTs (Tributyl tin);
(b) Arsenic;
(c) Mercury;
(d) Copper;
(e) Zinc;
(f) nickel;
(g) lead;
(h) chromium;
(i) cadmium;
(j) PAH (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons );
(k) pesticides;
(l) organochlorides; and
(m) asbestos?
(11) What are the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) safe limits for each of the above?
(12) What are the modeled worst case pollution scenario’s for Leighton Beach and Cottesloe Beach from the Inner Harbour channel deepening dredging operations?
(13) What beach/beaches are at risk of closure this summer along the west coast if pollutant levels exceed World Health Organisation standards and/or if sediment concentration reaches unacceptable levels?
(14) How will the Minister ensure that the beaches are monitored and implement any beach closures?
(15) What risk assessment has been made of the likely elevated risk to swimmers and other beach users of shark attacks in the circumstance of a visible plume?
(16) Who made this assessment?
(17) Who was consulted in the assessment process?
(18) What strategies will the Minister implement to address any increased risk of shark attacks?
(19) What contingency plan is in place if aerial shark patrols are ineffective in spotting sharks due to poor water visibility?
(20) A report was produced by URS in 2007 entitled, ‘Detailed Site Investigation Rous Head Reclamation Area’. This report was not made available by the Fremantle Port Authority during the EPA’s PER assessment process, -
(a) will the Minister table the report; and
(b) if no to (20) (a) why not?
(21) The statutory public consultation process carried out by the Fremantle Port Authority as part of the PER only involved a small number of stakeholders, what agencies were consulted during the preparation of the PER?
(22) Were the following agencies or organisations consulted, -
(a) Town of Mosman Park;
(b) City of Nedlands;
(c) Shire of Peppermint Grove;
(d) Multiplex Living ‘The Leighton’ beachside apartment developer;
(e) Save Freo Beaches;
(f) Leighton Coastal Coalition; and
(g) Cottesloe Coastcare Swanbourne Coastal Alliance?
(23) If yes to (22), please summarise their response?
(24) If no to any agency mentioned in (22), why not?
(25) In the PER, the proponent does not specify key aspects of the project such a detailed operational plan for the reclamation of the Rous Head site, -
(a) what is the material to be used in the construction of the seawall;
(b) will the stockpiled waste materials be dumped into the water after the completion of the seawall;
(c) what measures will be taken to stop toxic pollutants leaching out from under the gotextile barrier placed inside the seawall and through the bottom of the reclamation area into the ocean; and
(d) what contingency plan is in place in case any material used in the seawall is dislodged or damaged by waves and/or currents?
(26) Did the Fremantle Port Authority provide a detailed plan on how these operations will take place including a time schedule?
(27) Will the Minister table this plan?
(28) Has the EPA in its assessment taken into consideration cumulative effects of other projects that will or likely to be taking place in Cockburn Sound, such dredging operations for the new James Point private port which is likely to add another sediment plume to the already heavy plume from the FPA operations?
(29) What is potential effect of the sediment plume on the following species of sea mammals, -
(a) bottlenose dolphins in the Swan River; and
(b) Australian sea lion at Carnac Island?
(30) Why does the extent of the plume obtained from the modelling in the PER prepared by SKM appears to skirt around Carnac Island?
(31) Has the 173 000 cu m of contaminated waste at Rous Head that is to be used in the reclamation operations been listed as a contaminated site under the
Contaminated Sites Act
?
(32) If no to (31), why not?
(33) If yes to (31), has the FPA legal authority to move and dump into the ocean a large amount of contaminated material?
(1) Is existing stockpiled material at Rous Head to be mixed with the material from the Fremantle Harbour in the reclamation operation at Rous Head?
(2) If yes to (1), -
(a) what is the nature of this material;
(b) does it contain toxins; and
(c) if yes to (2) (b), what are these toxins?
(3) Will the Minister table the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) report for lot 1 on Plan 23900, produced in January 2008?
(4) If no to (1), what will be done with this stockpiled material?
(5) What is the estimated length of time that the geotextile material lining the containment wall for the reclamation area at Rous Head will remain impervious?
(6) The surface sediment samples from the Entrance Chanel shows toxin levels well above National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM), how can the Minister be sure that none of that material will enter the environment in the future?
(7) In the assessment of the suitability of Rous Head as a dumping ground, has any consideration been given to rising sea levels and or increased storm damage as a result of climate change?
(8) What volume and concentration of toxic material is likely to reach Leighton, Cottesloe or Swanbourne beaches from the reclamation operations?
(9) What volume and concentration of toxic material is likely to reach Leighton, Cottesloe or Swanbourne beaches from the off-shore dumping of dredging spoil?
(10) What are the potential health risks on local beach/water users, for both adults and children, for each of the following contaminants, -
(a) TBTs (Tributyl tin);
(b) Arsenic;
(c) Mercury;
(d) Copper;
(e) Zinc;
(f) nickel;
(g) lead;
(h) chromium;
(i) cadmium;
(j) PAH (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons );
(k) pesticides;
(l) organochlorides; and
(m) asbestos?
(11) What are the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) safe limits for each of the above?
(12) What are the modeled worst case pollution scenario’s for Leighton Beach and Cottesloe Beach from the Inner Harbour channel deepening dredging operations?
(13) What beach/beaches are at risk of closure this summer along the west coast if pollutant levels exceed World Health Organisation standards and/or if sediment concentration reaches unacceptable levels?
(14) How will the Minister ensure that the beaches are monitored and implement any beach closures?
(15) What risk assessment has been made of the likely elevated risk to swimmers and other beach users of shark attacks in the circumstance of a visible plume?
(16) Who made this assessment?
(17) Who was consulted in the assessment process?
(18) What strategies will the Minister implement to address any increased risk of shark attacks?
(19) What contingency plan is in place if aerial shark patrols are ineffective in spotting sharks due to poor water visibility?
(20) A report was produced by URS in 2007 entitled, ‘Detailed Site Investigation Rous Head Reclamation Area’. This report was not made available by the Fremantle Port Authority during the EPA’s PER assessment process, -
(a) will the Minister table the report; and
(b) if no to (20) (a) why not?
(21) The statutory public consultation process carried out by the Fremantle Port Authority as part of the PER only involved a small number of stakeholders, what agencies were consulted during the preparation of the PER?
(22) Were the following agencies or organisations consulted, -
(a) Town of Mosman Park;
(b) City of Nedlands;
(c) Shire of Peppermint Grove;
(d) Multiplex Living ‘The Leighton’ beachside apartment developer;
(e) Save Freo Beaches;
(f) Leighton Coastal Coalition; and
(g) Cottesloe Coastcare Swanbourne Coastal Alliance?
(23) If yes to (22), please summarise their response?
(24) If no to any agency mentioned in (22), why not?
(25) In the PER, the proponent does not specify key aspects of the project such a detailed operational plan for the reclamation of the Rous Head site, -
(a) what is the material to be used in the construction of the seawall;
(b) will the stockpiled waste materials be dumped into the water after the completion of the seawall;
(c) what measures will be taken to stop toxic pollutants leaching out from under the gotextile barrier placed inside the seawall and through the bottom of the reclamation area into the ocean; and
(d) what contingency plan is in place in case any material used in the seawall is dislodged or damaged by waves and/or currents?
(26) Did the Fremantle Port Authority provide a detailed plan on how these operations will take place including a time schedule?
(27) Will the Minister table this plan?
(28) Has the EPA in its assessment taken into consideration cumulative effects of other projects that will or likely to be taking place in Cockburn Sound, such dredging operations for the new James Point private port which is likely to add another sediment plume to the already heavy plume from the FPA operations?
(29) What is potential effect of the sediment plume on the following species of sea mammals, -
(a) bottlenose dolphins in the Swan River; and
(b) Australian sea lion at Carnac Island?
(30) Why does the extent of the plume obtained from the modelling in the PER prepared by SKM appears to skirt around Carnac Island?
(31) Has the 173 000 cu m of contaminated waste at Rous Head that is to be used in the reclamation operations been listed as a contaminated site under the
Contaminated Sites Act
?
(32) If no to (31), why not?
(33) If yes to (31), has the FPA legal authority to move and dump into the ocean a large amount of contaminated material?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
27 November 2009
Responded by
Minister for Environment
Response time
43 days
(1) Yes.
(2)
(a) The stockpiled material at the Rous Head reclamation area (the northern portion of Lot467 on Plan 218636) was sourced from a variety of locations and activities across the Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Area between 1995 and 2005.
(b) The stockpiled material contains copper, zinc and the organochlorine pesticide dieldrin above soil Ecological Investigation Levels but below Health-based Investigation Levels for all land uses.
(c) See the answer to (b).
(3)
(a-b) This question should be directed to the Minister for Transport.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) The geotextile liner is made from polypropylene, which is a very durable polymer that has excellent chemical and biological resistance. Its function is to act as an impervious liner to fine particles in order to prevent their escape whilst the seawall and reclamation area settles and stabilizes. It is not required to serve any significant purpose after stabilisation occurs. However, I am advised it is estimated to remain intact for decades.
(6) Concentrations of several contaminants in sediments were found above the NODGDM screening levels. Exceedance of the screening levels triggers further investigation to determine whether the contaminants are likely to dis-associate from the sediment and be released into the surrounding water. If further investigations show the concentrations of contaminants are estimated to exceed the relevant water quality guidelines, then ecotoxicity tests are generally undertaken to determine whether actual effects on marine biota are likely and at what concentrations.
All contaminants that exceeded NODGDM screening levels in the sediments were found to be strongly bound to the sediment particles and did not result in exceedance of the water quality guidelines. All Entrance Channel sediments will be disposed at Rous Head behind a geotextile lined seawall to prevent the sediments from washing into coastal waters. I am advised that it is therefore considered that the levels of contaminants do not pose a health or environmental risk.
(7) The design of the protective seawall and the level of reclamation has taken into account predictions on climate change and sea level rise by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(8) All sediments from the Entrance Channel will be disposed at Rous Head behind a geotextile lined seawall to prevent the sediments from washing into coastal waters. Studies undertaken by the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) show that any dissolved contaminants in the return water will meet a high level of ecological protection and health related guidelines for recreational waters at the edge of the moderate ecological protection zone immediately surrounding the Rous Head return water discharge point. The conditions in Ministerial Statement No. 801 require the FPA to manage the dredging and reclamation program within the context of an environmental quality management framework that will protect the quality of the surrounding environment.
Condition 6-3 of Ministerial Statement 801 requires the proponent to demonstrate that the environmental quality 'trigger' levels for a high level of ecological protection are met. If they are not met the proponent is required to immediately report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment and Conservation with the relevant remedial and/or preventative actions to be implemented.
(9) As described in EPA Report 1330, the nature of the material to be dredged in the deep water channel is mainly crushed limestone rock approximately 10-100mm in size. Sediment samples from the proposed deep water Channel dredging area did not exceed NODGDM screening levels and are considered suitable for offshore disposal. I am advised that the levels of contaminants in the dredged sediment to be placed offshore are therefore considered not to pose a health or environmental risk. The size of the crushed material to be placed at the offshore disposal site and the investigations undertaken by the proponent show that the spoil ground will be stable.
(10-11) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Health.
(12) Sediment plume modelling was undertaken to determine the maximum potential extent of visible suspended sediment plumes from the dredging program. The results indicate that the visible plume could occasionally extend to areas beyond Leighton and Cottesloe beaches.
(13-14) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Health.
(15-19) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Fisheries.
(20)
(a-b) This question should be referred to the Minister for Transport.
(21) Copies of the proponent's Public Environmental Review document were provided to the following State and local government agencies, organisations and libraries:
State and local government agencies
Department of Environment and Conservation
Department for Planning and Infrastructure
Department of Fisheries
Department of Treasury and Finance
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for State Development
Department of Indigenous Affairs
SwanRiverTrust
City of Fremantle
Town of East Fremantle
The South West Group
Town of Cottesloe
Environmental Groups
Conservation Council of Western Australia
Recfishwest
Industry Groups
Chamber of Commerce and IndustryWA
Fremantle Chamber of Commerce
WA Port Operations Task Force
Shipping Australia
Planning and Transport Research Centre, CurtinUniversity
WA Fishing Industry Council
Port Service Providers
Fremantle and Kwinana Pilots
Patrick Terminals
DP World (Fremantle) Ltd
Svitzer Australia
Libraries
J S BattyeLibrary
City of Fremantle Library
Spearwood Public Library
Kwinana Public Library
(22)
(a-g) These organisations were not formally consulted as part of the PER process, however questions relating to broader consultation by the Fremantle Port Authority should be directed to the Minister for Transport.
(23) Not applicable.
(24) The proponent's PER document was made available for a public review period of six weeks from 19 January 2009 to 2 March 2009. The invitation for public submissions was advertised by the proponent in The West Australian on 17 January and 7 February 2009. During this time, any persons or organisations were able to make submissions to the EPA. The PER was available at a number of local libraries and for download from the Fremantle Ports website. While the agencies and organisations listed in question 22 were not provided with a copy of the PER document, they were able to obtain a copy of the PER from the proponent's website and make a submission to the EPA.
(25)
(a) The material to be used in the construction of the seawall is quarried limestone and granite rock.
(b) The stockpiled materials will be placed and compacted in layers behind the geotextile lined seawall.
(c) Materials in the existing stockpile have been comprehensively sampled and tested and are suitable for use in reclamation. Laboratory elutriates testing and a sea water trial were conducted on the concrete from demolition present in the stockpile to demonstrate that the material would not adversely impact the marine environment. In addition ongoing monitoring will occur to ensure that marine water quality is maintained.
(d) Rock armour is being placed progressively along the seawall to protect it from wave and storm damage.
(26) No, however Section 2.4.5 of the PER describes the manner in which the seawall at Rous Head will be constructed.
(27) Not applicable.
(28) No.
(29)
(a) The EPA in Report 1330 did not identify the potential impacts of the proposal on dolphins as a key environmental factor requiring detailed evaluation during its assessment. The EPA has advised me that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on dolphins in the Swan River.
(b) CarnacIslandis located approximately 8 kilometres from the entrance channel of the FremantleInnerHarbour. The EPA in Report 1330 did not identify the potential impacts of the proposal on the Australian sea lions at CarnacIslandas a key environmental factor requiring detailed evaluation during its assessment. The EPA has advised me that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the Australian sea lions at Carnac Island.
(30) I am advised that the question is referring to figures which show contours for the furthest extent of the predicted visible plume at 2mg/l above background. It is a cumulative plot of all modelled occurrences where more than 2mg/l of sediment was predicted for greater than 3 hours. Modelling was during daylight hours, for events of greater than 3 hours duration and for the duration of dredging.
I am advised that the reason that the predicted visible plume contour 'skirts around' Carnac Island is because the model predicts stronger currents close to the shore which disperse any sediments, and although there may have been a modelled value of total suspended solids above background, it did not reach 2mg/l above background for more than 3 hours.
(31) Yes.
(32) Not applicable.
(33) The FPA has environmental approval to undertake reclamation at Rous Head subject to the conditions in Ministerial Statements 801 and 383.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2)
(a) The stockpiled material at the Rous Head reclamation area (the northern portion of Lot467 on Plan 218636) was sourced from a variety of locations and activities across the Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Area between 1995 and 2005.
(b) The stockpiled material contains copper, zinc and the organochlorine pesticide dieldrin above soil Ecological Investigation Levels but below Health-based Investigation Levels for all land uses.
(c) See the answer to (b).
(3)
(a-b) This question should be directed to the Minister for Transport.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) The geotextile liner is made from polypropylene, which is a very durable polymer that has excellent chemical and biological resistance. Its function is to act as an impervious liner to fine particles in order to prevent their escape whilst the seawall and reclamation area settles and stabilizes. It is not required to serve any significant purpose after stabilisation occurs. However, I am advised it is estimated to remain intact for decades.
(6) Concentrations of several contaminants in sediments were found above the NODGDM screening levels. Exceedance of the screening levels triggers further investigation to determine whether the contaminants are likely to dis-associate from the sediment and be released into the surrounding water. If further investigations show the concentrations of contaminants are estimated to exceed the relevant water quality guidelines, then ecotoxicity tests are generally undertaken to determine whether actual effects on marine biota are likely and at what concentrations.
All contaminants that exceeded NODGDM screening levels in the sediments were found to be strongly bound to the sediment particles and did not result in exceedance of the water quality guidelines. All Entrance Channel sediments will be disposed at Rous Head behind a geotextile lined seawall to prevent the sediments from washing into coastal waters. I am advised that it is therefore considered that the levels of contaminants do not pose a health or environmental risk.
(7) The design of the protective seawall and the level of reclamation has taken into account predictions on climate change and sea level rise by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(8) All sediments from the Entrance Channel will be disposed at Rous Head behind a geotextile lined seawall to prevent the sediments from washing into coastal waters. Studies undertaken by the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) show that any dissolved contaminants in the return water will meet a high level of ecological protection and health related guidelines for recreational waters at the edge of the moderate ecological protection zone immediately surrounding the Rous Head return water discharge point. The conditions in Ministerial Statement No. 801 require the FPA to manage the dredging and reclamation program within the context of an environmental quality management framework that will protect the quality of the surrounding environment.
Condition 6-3 of Ministerial Statement 801 requires the proponent to demonstrate that the environmental quality 'trigger' levels for a high level of ecological protection are met. If they are not met the proponent is required to immediately report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment and Conservation with the relevant remedial and/or preventative actions to be implemented.
(9) As described in EPA Report 1330, the nature of the material to be dredged in the deep water channel is mainly crushed limestone rock approximately 10-100mm in size. Sediment samples from the proposed deep water Channel dredging area did not exceed NODGDM screening levels and are considered suitable for offshore disposal. I am advised that the levels of contaminants in the dredged sediment to be placed offshore are therefore considered not to pose a health or environmental risk. The size of the crushed material to be placed at the offshore disposal site and the investigations undertaken by the proponent show that the spoil ground will be stable.
(10-11) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Health.
(12) Sediment plume modelling was undertaken to determine the maximum potential extent of visible suspended sediment plumes from the dredging program. The results indicate that the visible plume could occasionally extend to areas beyond Leighton and Cottesloe beaches.
(13-14) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Health.
(15-19) These questions should be referred to the Minister for Fisheries.
(20)
(a-b) This question should be referred to the Minister for Transport.
(21) Copies of the proponent's Public Environmental Review document were provided to the following State and local government agencies, organisations and libraries:
State and local government agencies
Department of Environment and Conservation
Department for Planning and Infrastructure
Department of Fisheries
Department of Treasury and Finance
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for State Development
Department of Indigenous Affairs
SwanRiverTrust
City of Fremantle
Town of East Fremantle
The South West Group
Town of Cottesloe
Environmental Groups
Conservation Council of Western Australia
Recfishwest
Industry Groups
Chamber of Commerce and IndustryWA
Fremantle Chamber of Commerce
WA Port Operations Task Force
Shipping Australia
Planning and Transport Research Centre, CurtinUniversity
WA Fishing Industry Council
Port Service Providers
Fremantle and Kwinana Pilots
Patrick Terminals
DP World (Fremantle) Ltd
Svitzer Australia
Libraries
J S BattyeLibrary
City of Fremantle Library
Spearwood Public Library
Kwinana Public Library
(22)
(a-g) These organisations were not formally consulted as part of the PER process, however questions relating to broader consultation by the Fremantle Port Authority should be directed to the Minister for Transport.
(23) Not applicable.
(24) The proponent's PER document was made available for a public review period of six weeks from 19 January 2009 to 2 March 2009. The invitation for public submissions was advertised by the proponent in The West Australian on 17 January and 7 February 2009. During this time, any persons or organisations were able to make submissions to the EPA. The PER was available at a number of local libraries and for download from the Fremantle Ports website. While the agencies and organisations listed in question 22 were not provided with a copy of the PER document, they were able to obtain a copy of the PER from the proponent's website and make a submission to the EPA.
(25)
(a) The material to be used in the construction of the seawall is quarried limestone and granite rock.
(b) The stockpiled materials will be placed and compacted in layers behind the geotextile lined seawall.
(c) Materials in the existing stockpile have been comprehensively sampled and tested and are suitable for use in reclamation. Laboratory elutriates testing and a sea water trial were conducted on the concrete from demolition present in the stockpile to demonstrate that the material would not adversely impact the marine environment. In addition ongoing monitoring will occur to ensure that marine water quality is maintained.
(d) Rock armour is being placed progressively along the seawall to protect it from wave and storm damage.
(26) No, however Section 2.4.5 of the PER describes the manner in which the seawall at Rous Head will be constructed.
(27) Not applicable.
(28) No.
(29)
(a) The EPA in Report 1330 did not identify the potential impacts of the proposal on dolphins as a key environmental factor requiring detailed evaluation during its assessment. The EPA has advised me that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on dolphins in the Swan River.
(b) CarnacIslandis located approximately 8 kilometres from the entrance channel of the FremantleInnerHarbour. The EPA in Report 1330 did not identify the potential impacts of the proposal on the Australian sea lions at CarnacIslandas a key environmental factor requiring detailed evaluation during its assessment. The EPA has advised me that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the Australian sea lions at Carnac Island.
(30) I am advised that the question is referring to figures which show contours for the furthest extent of the predicted visible plume at 2mg/l above background. It is a cumulative plot of all modelled occurrences where more than 2mg/l of sediment was predicted for greater than 3 hours. Modelling was during daylight hours, for events of greater than 3 hours duration and for the duration of dredging.
I am advised that the reason that the predicted visible plume contour 'skirts around' Carnac Island is because the model predicts stronger currents close to the shore which disperse any sediments, and although there may have been a modelled value of total suspended solids above background, it did not reach 2mg/l above background for more than 3 hours.
(31) Yes.
(32) Not applicable.
(33) The FPA has environmental approval to undertake reclamation at Rous Head subject to the conditions in Ministerial Statements 801 and 383.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.