❓ Opposition questions the cost of rebranding the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) to DEMRS, while the Premier defends the change as a necessary reflection of the department's energy portfolio and criticizes past government spending on unfulfilled projects.
AnsweredQoN 884Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF MINES,
INDUSTRY REGULATION AND SAFETY — NAME CHANGE
884. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
I
refer to the announced rebranding of the Department of Mines, Industry
Regulation and Safety to DEMRS, with an ''E'' for energy, which,
amid the cost-of-living crisis, will slug the taxpayers of Western Australia
$300 000 for a glorified stationery update that is meant to better reflect the
importance of Western Australia's energy portfolio.
(1) Would investing in the future of
the sector not demonstrate the importance of the portfolio?
(2) Is this
rebrand an indication of a broader restructure afoot across government
departments such as the rumoured undoing of the machinery-of-government changes
in the Department of Communities?
INDUSTRY REGULATION AND SAFETY — NAME CHANGE
884. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
I
refer to the announced rebranding of the Department of Mines, Industry
Regulation and Safety to DEMRS, with an ''E'' for energy, which,
amid the cost-of-living crisis, will slug the taxpayers of Western Australia
$300 000 for a glorified stationery update that is meant to better reflect the
importance of Western Australia's energy portfolio.
(1) Would investing in the future of
the sector not demonstrate the importance of the portfolio?
(2) Is this
rebrand an indication of a broader restructure afoot across government
departments such as the rumoured undoing of the machinery-of-government changes
in the Department of Communities?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
The length and breadth of these questions today is breathtaking. That was quite
the journey. Thank you very much, member. It
gives me the opportunity to perhaps talk at length, and I will take that opportunity . We want to make sure that the name of the
department reflects the full breadth and scope of its activities. It is
an appropriate change to reflect the fact that it has an important role to play
in those activities. It is a light touch. It will not be ruinously expensive or
disruptive. The department has allowed for the costs associated with that up to $300 000, but no money has been spent. It
might cost $3 000, for all I know, or it might cost $30 000. Obviously,
it will be necessary to undertake some small adjustments to make sure that the name of the department reflects the scope
of its duties. I think it is a perfectly appropriate change because that
is what the department does. It is not a machinery-of-government change or a restructure;
it simply describes what the department does.
It is doing a great job,
particularly in the energy context, and we know that it will be an increasingly
important part of what it does as a department as we move into the energy
transition. Tomorrow, we will have the Energy Transition Summit where a range
of speakers will present the challenges and opportunities associated with our
decarbonisation journey and the importance that energy policy will play as part
of that journey. It is important that we acknowledge the great work that has
been done in this department advising on energy policy and in energy
procurement, planning and making sure we are investing in asset construction to
ensure that these things take place. That great work is going on today and it
will be reflected in the title of the department going forward. It is work that
is going on today; it is nuts and bolts. It
is activity and getting out there. We know that other governments spent a lot
of money on stationery, promotion, consultation and the development of
livery and branding that never took place and was never going to take place
because it was simply a political lie.
We all remember MAX light rail.
Ms R. Saffioti : You gave it a name and it didn't
exist.
Mr R.H. COOK : It not only had a name; it probably also
had a mascot.
Ms A. Sanderson : It did.
Mr R.H. COOK : It did? An avalanche of political
propaganda was prosecuted by those opposite when they were in government, and
we now know they never had any intention of implementing it. It was simply a political
thought bubble to try to prop up their electorates in the inner northern
suburbs. It was a fraud on the people of Western Australia. We will remind them
of the previous government's dishonesty when it twice promised the Ellenbrook rail line and did not deliver it. It
promised them MAX light rail and never delivered it. To be fair, it did go further down the road on MAX light rail by
producing a little stationery. It also spent $27 840 on consultants to pick the name ''MAX light rail''. In
addition, we had Hon Troy Buswell, the then Minister for Transport, spending $68 500 to go to Europe and Asia to investigate light rail.
Several members interjected.
Mr R.H. COOK : I seem to remember it also involved an extensive
analysis of light rail in the Champagne region . The previous government spent $111 000 on advertising and promotional
material and, of course, we are indebted to the Minister for Transport
for providing to us forever more—who can forget?—the MAX light
rail USB stick. They are eye-watering numbers on essentially what was a political
lie to the people of the northern suburbs of Perth.
The former government promised a light rail system that it never intended to
deliver. Even though it had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on
advertising promotions, $27 000 on consultants to pick the name and over $68 000
to send the minister overseas to do an investigation, it even went so far as to
spend $3 000 on a team-building project. Maybe if it had spent a bit more money
on that, we would not see the chaos and dysfunction we see between the Liberals
and the Nationals WA. Maybe if we utilise that money now, we will see a better
performance from you sorry lot.
Energy will be an important part of what we do into the
future. It is important to acknowledge that work in the department. It is a very
appropriate change of name, with modest measures taking place over time. The
name of the department will change and evolve and that will be reflected in
various stationery and other things.
The length and breadth of these questions today is breathtaking. That was quite
the journey. Thank you very much, member. It
gives me the opportunity to perhaps talk at length, and I will take that opportunity . We want to make sure that the name of the
department reflects the full breadth and scope of its activities. It is
an appropriate change to reflect the fact that it has an important role to play
in those activities. It is a light touch. It will not be ruinously expensive or
disruptive. The department has allowed for the costs associated with that up to $300 000, but no money has been spent. It
might cost $3 000, for all I know, or it might cost $30 000. Obviously,
it will be necessary to undertake some small adjustments to make sure that the name of the department reflects the scope
of its duties. I think it is a perfectly appropriate change because that
is what the department does. It is not a machinery-of-government change or a restructure;
it simply describes what the department does.
It is doing a great job,
particularly in the energy context, and we know that it will be an increasingly
important part of what it does as a department as we move into the energy
transition. Tomorrow, we will have the Energy Transition Summit where a range
of speakers will present the challenges and opportunities associated with our
decarbonisation journey and the importance that energy policy will play as part
of that journey. It is important that we acknowledge the great work that has
been done in this department advising on energy policy and in energy
procurement, planning and making sure we are investing in asset construction to
ensure that these things take place. That great work is going on today and it
will be reflected in the title of the department going forward. It is work that
is going on today; it is nuts and bolts. It
is activity and getting out there. We know that other governments spent a lot
of money on stationery, promotion, consultation and the development of
livery and branding that never took place and was never going to take place
because it was simply a political lie.
We all remember MAX light rail.
Ms R. Saffioti : You gave it a name and it didn't
exist.
Mr R.H. COOK : It not only had a name; it probably also
had a mascot.
Ms A. Sanderson : It did.
Mr R.H. COOK : It did? An avalanche of political
propaganda was prosecuted by those opposite when they were in government, and
we now know they never had any intention of implementing it. It was simply a political
thought bubble to try to prop up their electorates in the inner northern
suburbs. It was a fraud on the people of Western Australia. We will remind them
of the previous government's dishonesty when it twice promised the Ellenbrook rail line and did not deliver it. It
promised them MAX light rail and never delivered it. To be fair, it did go further down the road on MAX light rail by
producing a little stationery. It also spent $27 840 on consultants to pick the name ''MAX light rail''. In
addition, we had Hon Troy Buswell, the then Minister for Transport, spending $68 500 to go to Europe and Asia to investigate light rail.
Several members interjected.
Mr R.H. COOK : I seem to remember it also involved an extensive
analysis of light rail in the Champagne region . The previous government spent $111 000 on advertising and promotional
material and, of course, we are indebted to the Minister for Transport
for providing to us forever more—who can forget?—the MAX light
rail USB stick. They are eye-watering numbers on essentially what was a political
lie to the people of the northern suburbs of Perth.
The former government promised a light rail system that it never intended to
deliver. Even though it had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on
advertising promotions, $27 000 on consultants to pick the name and over $68 000
to send the minister overseas to do an investigation, it even went so far as to
spend $3 000 on a team-building project. Maybe if it had spent a bit more money
on that, we would not see the chaos and dysfunction we see between the Liberals
and the Nationals WA. Maybe if we utilise that money now, we will see a better
performance from you sorry lot.
Energy will be an important part of what we do into the
future. It is important to acknowledge that work in the department. It is a very
appropriate change of name, with modest measures taking place over time. The
name of the department will change and evolve and that will be reflected in
various stationery and other things.
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.