Mr Cook questions the delay in appointing a new Chief Scientist, implying a lack of prioritisation by the Premier. Mr Barnett defends the timeline, citing standard procedure and ongoing recruitment efforts.

AnsweredQoN 116Legislative Assembly
Asked
12 March 2014
Portfolio
Science

QuestionView source ↗

CHIEF
SCIENTIST — APPOINTMENT
116. Mr R.H. COOK to the
Minister for Science:
I have a supplementary question. If science is such an
important priority for the Premier, how is it that the Premier has managed to
allow this position to simply lapse and become vacant?

AnswerView source ↗

For goodness sake! Today is 12 March.
Mr R.H. Cook : She
announced her departure in November!
The SPEAKER : Thank
you, member for Kwinana. It is not for you to answer the question. I call you
to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Professor Beazley finished her appointment late last year. We have had January
and February —
Mr
R.H. Cook : What were you doing late last year?
The SPEAKER :
Member for Kwinana!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
In case the member has not worked it out, if someone leaves a position, I
generally allow a period of time before the next person is appointed. That is
what I think is the correct procedure to follow. Professor Beazley announced
her decision late last year and retired basically at the end of the calendar
year. We obviously had summer, January and February. An approach has been made
to an individual and, as I said, he declined. There are other worthy potential
Chief Scientists, and discussions are continuing. Coincidentally, I had a
meeting about that appointment this morning.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more