❓ Hon Ken Travers asks the Minister for Transport about potential privatisation of Department of Transport functions. The Minister avoids direct answers, criticises the previous government, and accuses the questioner of malicious intent.
AnsweredQoN 1008Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT — PRIVATISATION OF FUNCTIONS
(1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Transport is either currently examining or has determined to privatise or contract out functions of the department? (2) If yes to (1), which functions or sections of the department are involved? (3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
(1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Transport is either currently examining or has determined to privatise or contract out functions of the department? (2) If yes to (1), which functions or sections of the department are involved? (3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(2) If yes to (1), which functions or sections of the department are involved? (3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(2) If yes to (1), which functions or sections of the department are involved? (3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(3) When does the government expect to advise staff of the decision? (4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(4) Will the minister guarantee that a public sector comparator will be developed before any final decision is made? (5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(5) Will the minister guarantee that he will table the public sector comparator after any decision is made? (6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(6) If no to (1), can the minister guarantee that no decision to contract out or privatise any function will be taken during this financial year; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question without notice—a six-part question without notice? Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Hon Ken Travers : Yes, six parts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
(1)-(6) I would like to thank the member for his six-part question without notice, which he has presumably committed to memory as well. The matters that are raised by the member are ones that I am quite happy to discuss. At any time there might be somewhere within a department—particularly one that is being reorganised or reconfigured after the disaster of the last government and what happened to the Department of Transport—all sorts of new ideas being worked up as possibilities to be explored. Those possibilities might be being worked up through staff members in various locations, through various parts of management, and, indeed, through interdepartmental processes. The honourable member’s question in fact I think related only to the examination of potential privatisations within the Department of Transport. I am quite happy for the government, whether it be officers in the department, or whether it be the government at a political level, to consider whether we might be able to offer better services to the public through ways that as yet are not being utilised. For example, shortly the member will see that we are doing a lot more—we are going to be doing a whole lot more—in the licensing area, which of course is something that the previous government completely and utterly failed to come to grips with in dealing with the requirements of the twenty-first century. On another occasion no doubt we will debate that. This question is one that we have to approach carefully, because clearly the motivation for asking it is to cause trouble and to start rumours and concern among staff. What I would say to the member is that morale among Department of Transport staff is very strong at the moment. It is certainly stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is because they know that they have a government that has a lot more faith in them than the previous government had. I do not want to see that being undermined by the sort of white ants who seem to think that that is the role of an opposition. With all that in mind, it is not my intention, and in fact I have not asked, for any search to be undertaken of ways in which we can outsource functions with a view to getting rid of people’s jobs. I want to make that absolutely clear. If the honourable member should allege such a thing, it would be a false allegation. Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
Finally, in relation to the member’s very detailed question, which clearly I think has a malicious intent lurking behind it, and which clearly was asked by someone who I am sure is quite happy to misrepresent whatever is put forward in government, I want to have the opportunity to see this six-part question—this loaded six-part question—in writing at least, so I invite the member to put the question on notice.
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.