❓ Mr. Rundle questions the Premier about the qualifications of the new Gaming and Wagering Commission chair, Duncan Ord, and the circumstances surrounding Barry Sargeant's departure. The Premier defends Ord's appointment, stating it was recommended by Sargeant and that generalist leadership is common in government.
AnsweredQoN 85Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
GAMING AND WAGERING COMMISSION — CHAIR —
DUNCAN ORD
85. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Premier:
I refer to question 57 yesterday
that the Premier failed to answer relating specifically to the qualifications
and experience of the chair of the Gaming and Wagering Commission.
(1) Can the
Premier confirm that Barry Sargeant, a person with 25 years of gaming
regulation experience, is to leave the position of chair due to the
machinery-of-government changes?
(2) Can the
Premier confirm that he replaced Mr Sargeant with Duncan Ord as chair of the
commission, a person with no gaming regulation expertise, experience or
training?
DUNCAN ORD
85. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Premier:
I refer to question 57 yesterday
that the Premier failed to answer relating specifically to the qualifications
and experience of the chair of the Gaming and Wagering Commission.
(1) Can the
Premier confirm that Barry Sargeant, a person with 25 years of gaming
regulation experience, is to leave the position of chair due to the
machinery-of-government changes?
(2) Can the
Premier confirm that he replaced Mr Sargeant with Duncan Ord as chair of the
commission, a person with no gaming regulation expertise, experience or
training?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) So the member understands, and I said this
yesterday—I do not know what he is talking about ''question 57''; I do not know what that means.
Mr P.J. Rundle :
It is the number of the question I asked yesterday.
Mr M. McGOWAN :
Question 57—what does that mean?
Several members
interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I have no idea
what the member is talking about—''question 57''. I have
been here only 24 years, but I do not know what question 57 is!
So
the member understands, I explained this to him yesterday. Mr Sargeant
recommended Mr Ord for the role. I was keen to ensure Mr Sargeant continued. I will
be frank with the member; I am quite good friends with Mr Sargeant. He
was the director general when I was minister back in 2005–06. I have
enormous respect for his abilities. Mr Sargeant said to me that he was going to
retire. He recommended Mr Ord for the role. That is what occurred. Duncan Ord
is a longstanding public servant, a very decent man, highly respected, dealing
with a range of portfolio responsibilities, as indeed do all the directors
general in a range of areas. It is the case that in some portfolios in
government, we have people who are generalists. They might be a specialist, if
you like, in one area of the portfolio, but the portfolio is broad and they
have deputy directors general and staff and the like to assist them in those
areas. It is often asked why the Minister for Defence Industry is not an
ex-member of the Defence Force. That is the nature of government. We get people
into ministerial roles who have a broad array of experiences and abilities— predominantly around leadership and administrative
abilities—who have responsibility for answering to a government
and to the minister. We do not necessarily have someone who is an expert. The
Commissioner of Police is a serving police officer; that is always the case.
The director general of Health is almost always a doctor, but in other agencies
across government, we have people with a range of experiences in roles in which
they are placed across agencies. Under the old system, the director general of
sport did not have to be an ex-sportsperson and the head of local government
did not have to be a mayor. It is just the nature of things in government.
Otherwise, we would have to have literally scores—probably hundreds—of
government departments with only people who had ever worked in an area as the
director general of that agency. When I studied politics at university, I was
always advised that sometimes it is better not to have a person from the area
because they come with the view that they know better than their advisers—certainly
in a ministerial sense. That is why Mr Ord was appointed; it was because he was
recommended to me by Mr Sargeant.
yesterday—I do not know what he is talking about ''question 57''; I do not know what that means.
Mr P.J. Rundle :
It is the number of the question I asked yesterday.
Mr M. McGOWAN :
Question 57—what does that mean?
Several members
interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I have no idea
what the member is talking about—''question 57''. I have
been here only 24 years, but I do not know what question 57 is!
So
the member understands, I explained this to him yesterday. Mr Sargeant
recommended Mr Ord for the role. I was keen to ensure Mr Sargeant continued. I will
be frank with the member; I am quite good friends with Mr Sargeant. He
was the director general when I was minister back in 2005–06. I have
enormous respect for his abilities. Mr Sargeant said to me that he was going to
retire. He recommended Mr Ord for the role. That is what occurred. Duncan Ord
is a longstanding public servant, a very decent man, highly respected, dealing
with a range of portfolio responsibilities, as indeed do all the directors
general in a range of areas. It is the case that in some portfolios in
government, we have people who are generalists. They might be a specialist, if
you like, in one area of the portfolio, but the portfolio is broad and they
have deputy directors general and staff and the like to assist them in those
areas. It is often asked why the Minister for Defence Industry is not an
ex-member of the Defence Force. That is the nature of government. We get people
into ministerial roles who have a broad array of experiences and abilities— predominantly around leadership and administrative
abilities—who have responsibility for answering to a government
and to the minister. We do not necessarily have someone who is an expert. The
Commissioner of Police is a serving police officer; that is always the case.
The director general of Health is almost always a doctor, but in other agencies
across government, we have people with a range of experiences in roles in which
they are placed across agencies. Under the old system, the director general of
sport did not have to be an ex-sportsperson and the head of local government
did not have to be a mayor. It is just the nature of things in government.
Otherwise, we would have to have literally scores—probably hundreds—of
government departments with only people who had ever worked in an area as the
director general of that agency. When I studied politics at university, I was
always advised that sometimes it is better not to have a person from the area
because they come with the view that they know better than their advisers—certainly
in a ministerial sense. That is why Mr Ord was appointed; it was because he was
recommended to me by Mr Sargeant.
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.