❓ Shadow Minister Ravlich questions Minister Collier about apprenticeship numbers, alleging he misled the public by using 2006 as a base year instead of 2008, which would show a decrease. Minister Collier deflects, attributing the figures to the Department and clarifying the journalist's question.
AnsweredQoN 48Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
APPRENTICES — NUMBER IN TRAINING
Further to my question without notice yesterday and the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase — Hon Peter Collier : My claim, did you say? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER
Further to my question without notice yesterday and the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase — Hon Peter Collier : My claim, did you say? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Peter Collier : My claim, did you say? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Peter Collier : My claim, did you say? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes. Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Peter Collier : My claim in The West Australian ? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : Yes; I refer to the minister’s claim in The West Australian that there had been “an 8 per cent increase in apprentices in training, or 19,706 now compared to 18,251 in January 2006”. (1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(1) Why did the minister use 2006 as the base year and not 2008, which would have shown that there are now 3 294 fewer apprentices in training, representing a 14 per cent drop from when he took on the training portfolio? (2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(2) Why did the minister deliberately try to mislead the public by claiming an eight per cent increase in apprentices in training when in fact it is a 14 per cent drop? The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Because that was a question without notice—a rather lengthy question—perhaps the member might like to provide a copy to the minister so that he has some — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Try not to draw on it! Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
(1)–(2) There are two things that I want to clarify first of all. The quote to which the honourable member is referring should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the director general, Ruth Shean. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You are the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : No. The member asked a question, and in that question she said “according to the minister”. That quote is not attributable to me, and I want the member to acknowledge that because it is not. She is wrong yet again. We have here a failed minister who gets her facts wrong. I am getting so used to this. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I beg your pardon. I will take the member’s interjection. What did she say? Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Sue Ellery : And you’re a minister who won’t answer the question. Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I will answer the question if you shut up. The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Order! Sit down. I am not sure what it is between you two, but you bring out the worst in each other, and that incites other people to join in. From now on I would just like a question to be asked and for the minister to answer it without interjection. Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted for that to occur. I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the quote that the minister referred to in her question was inaccurate. Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Simon O’Brien : You meant the former minister. Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : The former minister, sorry—the former failed minister. The quote is inaccurate. It should not be attributed to me; it should be attributed to the department. Secondly, she said, “Why was the year” — Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ken Travers : Are you responsible for your department? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I would like to accept that interjection. I would not have a problem if the question were accurate. The question was inaccurate. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : They’re your figures. Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : No! Stop! The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The second issue was: why was 2006 used instead of 2008? I will tell the honourable member: because the question from the journalist was, “What were the figures in 2006 and 2010?”—not 2008. It is as simple as that. There is no clandestine muddying of the waters. There is nothing wrong here, Mr President. It was a simple question from the journalist, who asked about comparing the 2006 figure with the 2008 figure, and I have a copy of the question that was provided by The West Australian . It is as simple as that. If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
If the member wants to get to that point, as I said last night, we have more than 19 000 trainees and apprentices at the moment. We also have—I need to emphasise this point yet again because the honourable member simply does not understand the concept of suspensions—suspensions and cancellations of apprenticeships. That adds another 3 500 or 3 200 apprentices. That does not mean that they are apprentices who have given up. It means that they are apprentices who have taken, for want of a better term, a sabbatical. They may find that they are not enjoying the particular trade they are in or they are not enjoying working with the employer—whatever it may be. They are apprentices who have just given up for a period of time. It is as simple as that. Again, it is out there. The facts are real. Ideally, we want to attract those people back into their apprenticeships. If they come in and decide that they do not want to do a particular trade, I encourage them to take off and try something different—go and stack shelves for three months and then come back and try another — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Keep going! Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ken Travers : Someone misses being a schoolteacher, don’t they? Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I have been told by the headmaster — Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Simon O’Brien : Someone misses being in government, don’t they? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : No, not really. The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
The PRESIDENT : Order! We are halfway through question time and we have had six questions asked, which is not very good progress. Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
Hon PETER COLLIER : Sorry, Mr President. I just want to clarify this, because the member peddles these untruths constantly. Last night we heard a diatribe of nonsense that is factually incorrect. Firstly, she does not understand the concept of cancellations and suspensions; she simply does not. The department was asked a simple question: what was the distinction between 2006 and 2010? I have seen the question. The department was asked that question and it gave that response. As I have said, in the interim we have been very proactive to try to improve that situation. In particular, as I said a couple of weeks ago, through the $47.5 million stimulus package, which was directed to assisting apprentices, contrary to the honourable member’s inaccurate media statement, one of the things we did was provide fee exemptions for the unemployed. Has that been successful? Yes, it has. More than 4 000 unemployed people are now in training—more than 4 000—so it has been successful. There are workers’ compensation entitlements—rebates—for first-year apprentices, to directly assist apprentices, contrary to the inaccuracy in the honourable member’s media statement. She is consistently wrong. I hope I have clarified the situation, and I hope I have answered the question. The quote is not attributable to me. I want to make that clear. But if I were asked that question, I would give that same response. The question from the journalist specifically asked for the figures for 2006 and 2010.
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.