❓ Opposition asks the Premier about specific funded programs and targets for skilled jobs in the resources sector. The Premier deflects, suggesting the question should be directed to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development and criticizes the opposition's approach.
AnsweredQoN 245Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RESOURCES PROJECTS — SKILLED LOCAL JOBS
I note that when asked about any government plans to ensure that there are more skilled WA jobs in the current resources boom, the lead minister responsible, the Minister for Commerce, stated “There are not only plans but also activities in place to make sure we encourage access to resources projects.” (1) Can the Premier name a specific funded government program the Premier has initiated to address this issue? (2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I note that when asked about any government plans to ensure that there are more skilled WA jobs in the current resources boom, the lead minister responsible, the Minister for Commerce, stated “There are not only plans but also activities in place to make sure we encourage access to resources projects.” (1) Can the Premier name a specific funded government program the Premier has initiated to address this issue? (2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(1) Can the Premier name a specific funded government program the Premier has initiated to address this issue? (2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(1) Can the Premier name a specific funded government program the Premier has initiated to address this issue? (2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(2) Will the Premier commit to specific targets for the government to achieve for new skilled jobs and new value-adding businesses in WA as a consequence of huge growth in WA’s resources industry? (3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(3) If so, how many skilled jobs and what areas will the Premier be targeting? (4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(4) Which new downstream industries does the Premier see emerging? (5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(5) If the Premier will not give those answers, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
(1)–(5) The Leader of the Opposition seems to be anticipating a negative reaction to his question. I will make some comment, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should have addressed the question to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. A whole range of projects have been undertaken to provide the right skills mix for the growth — Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr M. McGowan : He’s not here. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he is not here, but that is to whom the question should have been directed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the question on notice, I will give him a detailed listing of all of the initiatives taken in the training portfolio, because that is the most important. With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
With respect to local content, the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to the bill that the opposition has brought in as private members’ business. We will debate that. I think there is room for improvement in local content. I have made that very clear. I have even acknowledged the work that the member for Cockburn has done in raising the issue; I think he has done it very properly. I will not go through it again, but members are aware of what I have been doing in terms of getting companies to change their procurement practices. That is happening, and we will see that come forward. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Is there a funded new initiative? Have you done anything apart from those measures to help? Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It does display the difference. There is a lot in the training portfolio. The approach of the Labor Party is first to be prescriptive, and then to come up with a funding proposal. It is very Labor. The difference from this side of politics is that we actually get involved in the procurement in affecting the behaviour of companies; we actually get involved with the fabricators and others, and I believe that will produce very substantial results for this state. The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
The opposition has its bill. It has a prescriptive method for trying to deal with an issue. I think that is bound to fail. All that will do is make people pitch in their reports the lowest level of local content. They will pitch low; they will not pitch high. Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That will be the government’s accountability then, if they accept those agreements. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, if there are targets, they will pitch the target at the lowest possible level. They will deliberately under-perform to make sure that they reach their target. I think the approach is flawed.
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.