❓ Opposition questions the legality of an $850,000 payment to Mr. Amendola for a review of the state's industrial relations system, highlighting a $350,000 cost blow-out and the absence of a formal contract. The Premier defends the review's necessity but concedes the cost is high and the blow-out significant.
AnsweredQoN 93Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEM REVIEW
I refer to the $350 000 blow-out in the cost of the review of the state’s industrial relations system. Freedom of information documents reveal that there was never a formal contract for this work to be undertaken. (1) Given the Minister for Commerce’s failure to either procure Mr Steven Amendola’s services consistent with the Financial Management Act or to contract him or have him contracted under the Public Sector Management Act, can the Premier explain to the house how the payment of his $850 000 bill is lawful? (2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the $350 000 blow-out in the cost of the review of the state’s industrial relations system. Freedom of information documents reveal that there was never a formal contract for this work to be undertaken. (1) Given the Minister for Commerce’s failure to either procure Mr Steven Amendola’s services consistent with the Financial Management Act or to contract him or have him contracted under the Public Sector Management Act, can the Premier explain to the house how the payment of his $850 000 bill is lawful? (2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(1) Given the Minister for Commerce’s failure to either procure Mr Steven Amendola’s services consistent with the Financial Management Act or to contract him or have him contracted under the Public Sector Management Act, can the Premier explain to the house how the payment of his $850 000 bill is lawful? (2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(1) Given the Minister for Commerce’s failure to either procure Mr Steven Amendola’s services consistent with the Financial Management Act or to contract him or have him contracted under the Public Sector Management Act, can the Premier explain to the house how the payment of his $850 000 bill is lawful? (2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(2) Does the Premier accept the view expressed by the minister’s spokesperson today that the blow-out in costs of about 30 per cent was a modest increase? The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
The SPEAKER : Before the Premier answers that question, I advise all members in this place that questions cannot be asked regarding a legal opinion. Premier, I call you to answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
(1)–(2) The first point to make is that we need to have a comprehensive review of the state’s industrial relations system. Given the changes federally, which happened principally under the Howard government, the role of industrial relations in this state is now confined to a relatively small area—essentially public sector employment and non-incorporated businesses—yet we still have the structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, the commissioners, their staff and all the rest of it. The first point I make is that the review is needed. There is no doubt that it is expensive. Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That is just filler until the Premier gets to the real question, which is what are the arrangements for the contract? Are they proper or is it a non-contract? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will get to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. My understanding is the appointment is in order. However, I have got no advice on that; it is my understanding. The amount of the consultancy is high. I think it is probably too high for the work being undertaken; I will not hide from that. I do not consider the increase in the cost to be modest. However, I defend the way the contract was set up and I defend the need for the state to have proper expertise to look at the future of our industrial relations system. Bear in mind that we are maintaining an industrial relations system and many millions and millions of dollars for which the workload is simply not there. We need to look at the legal side in relation to relevance and what role the state Industrial Relations Commission will play in the future. Although I have always supported maintaining the state industrial relations system, we have to look at the practicality of it given the way in which federal law has developed. They are important questions for industrial relations and for the workplace both for employers and employees. We should be getting the best advice, but it is more than I expected. I concede the blow-out is not moderate; it is a large blow-out. Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr F.M. Logan : He gave the Premier a rough estimate for his work initially. His words were “around $500 000”. That is unacceptable in any contract. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member says that but I do not accept what he has said. Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
Mr F.M. Logan : That is what the FOI says.
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.