❓ Hon Ed Dermer questions the Minister for Training regarding responsibility for vocational education and training, particularly when functions overlap with the education portfolio. The Minister assures collaborative solutions.
AnsweredQoN 103Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND TRAINEESHIPS 103. Hon ED DERMER to the Minister for Training: I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 53, which was asked on Thursday, 13 November 2008. When asked whether the Minister for Education or the Minister for Training has ministerial responsibility for vocational education and training in schools, school-based traineeships and Aboriginal school-based traineeship programs, the Minister for Training’s reply included the words — What belongs under the training and education portfolios is not clearly identifiable. (1) In the event that a problem arises pertaining to a function of government that the minister is unable to clearly identify as belonging to either the education or training portfolios, which minister will take responsibility for dealing with that problem? (2) What action, if any, does the minister intend to take to identify which minister is responsible for each of the government functions pertaining to training and education? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND TRAINEESHIPS
I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 53, which was asked on Thursday, 13 November 2008. When asked whether the Minister for Education or the Minister for Training has ministerial responsibility for vocational education and training in schools, school-based traineeships and Aboriginal school-based traineeship programs, the Minister for Training’s reply included the words — What belongs under the training and education portfolios is not clearly identifiable. (1) In the event that a problem arises pertaining to a function of government that the minister is unable to clearly identify as belonging to either the education or training portfolios, which minister will take responsibility for dealing with that problem? (2) What action, if any, does the minister intend to take to identify which minister is responsible for each of the government functions pertaining to training and education? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
(2) What action, if any, does the minister intend to take to identify which minister is responsible for each of the government functions pertaining to training and education? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
(1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND TRAINEESHIPS
I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 53, which was asked on Thursday, 13 November 2008. When asked whether the Minister for Education or the Minister for Training has ministerial responsibility for vocational education and training in schools, school-based traineeships and Aboriginal school-based traineeship programs, the Minister for Training’s reply included the words — What belongs under the training and education portfolios is not clearly identifiable. (1) In the event that a problem arises pertaining to a function of government that the minister is unable to clearly identify as belonging to either the education or training portfolios, which minister will take responsibility for dealing with that problem? (2) What action, if any, does the minister intend to take to identify which minister is responsible for each of the government functions pertaining to training and education? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
(2) What action, if any, does the minister intend to take to identify which minister is responsible for each of the government functions pertaining to training and education? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
(1)-(2) As I said to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when that question was first asked, with training and education there is inevitably a morphing of the two portfolios; there is an overlap. That happens across all sectors in all portfolios; some areas move into other areas, particularly in the areas of education and training. We have addressed that issue since that question was asked, but it was not in response to that question; it was in response to a desire from both the education minister and me to have clarity about who has responsibility for the various portfolios. We sought advice from the Director General of Education and Training, we talked about it and we have come to what we firmly believe will be a very workable solution; that is, there are identifiable responsibilities. For example, I am directly responsible for technical and further education colleges, obviously, and the Minister for Education is directly responsible for schools, obviously. However, there are areas within the component, such as school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships, in which there will be dual responsibility. When there is an instance such as that, we will work collaboratively and cooperatively for a just outcome. It works. I can assure the member that it works and that, contrary to the belief of some members on the opposite benches, I get on particularly well with the Minister for Education—I do not have a problem with the Minister for Education. We get on very well and we are intent on ensuring we have good outcomes for students both in the vocational education and training sector and—dare I say it?—in the more academic stream. Therefore, we have looked at it, we have addressed it and we have come up with a solution that we both believe is manageable and will be handled very successfully. Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon Ed Dermer : So in the event that a problem arises, does that mean you will both take responsibility? Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Yes, we will work cooperatively and collaboratively for an outcome. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : But you cannot have two people — The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister has answered the question. Hon Ed Dermer can have another go next week if he wishes, or later today perhaps.
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.