❓ A parliamentary question regarding the failed implementation of the Office of Shared Services, its transfer from the Premier's Department to Treasury, and accountability for the issues. The Premier's response deflects blame and cites external factors.
AnsweredQoN 123Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
OFFICE OF SHARED SERVICES - MANAGEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION
I refer to the implosion of the government’s shared services experiment and the fact that the project had to be shipped out of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and into the Department of Treasury and Finance at the beginning of the year. (1) Why was the Premier’s department incapable of successfully managing the implementation of this project? (2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
I refer to the implosion of the government’s shared services experiment and the fact that the project had to be shipped out of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and into the Department of Treasury and Finance at the beginning of the year. (1) Why was the Premier’s department incapable of successfully managing the implementation of this project? (2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(1) Why was the Premier’s department incapable of successfully managing the implementation of this project? (2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(1) Why was the Premier’s department incapable of successfully managing the implementation of this project? (2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(2) Who in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was involved in the shared services experiment and has anyone in the department been held accountable for this shambles? (3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(3) Why was the Under Treasurer forced to base himself at Cannington for a week in an attempt to fix up the mess that the Premier’s department left behind? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
(1)-(3) I will ignore the many rather over-exaggerated assumptions in the member’s question. I would not call the Office of Shared Services an experiment. The implementation of shared services has not gone as well as we would have liked. This issue was under discussion throughout last year. By the end of last year we, as a group, determined that fundamental changes were necessary given that significant financial implications were involved in the implementation program. We took the view - I shared that view - that it would be best if Treasury had a more direct role in overseeing the implementation of shared services, which, we still anticipate, will eventually deliver significant reform benefits to Western Australia that will enable the public sector and, therefore, the people of Western Australia to get better value for money. Some of the problems associated with the implementation of the program have been well and truly documented. They involve issues with Oracle’s provision of the software package, which was referred to in an earlier question. That company has explained its inability to meet certain deadlines and requirements by saying that, similar to areas in the public sector, it has had difficulties attracting and maintaining enough skilled staff to allow the implementation to proceed according to the projected time line. The group came to the view - I share that view - that rather than have the Department of the Premier and Cabinet overseeing the implementation, that role would be best carried out by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Under Treasurer has taken a specific role in the change of responsibility to ensure that we get a clear appreciation of the difficulties that are involved, the challenges that must be meet and the strategy that will best meet those challenges. As I said before, I regret the fact that Ron Mance has left the public sector. He was a very good contributor to public life in Western Australia.
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.