❓ The Minister for Finance announces the decommissioning of the Office of Shared Services facility in Cannington, criticising the previous Labor government's management and cost blowouts associated with the project.
AnsweredQoN 917Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
OFFICE OF
SHARED SERVICES SITE — CANNINGTON
917. Mr P.T. MILES to the
Minister for Finance:
Before I ask a
question of the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the member for Forrestfield,
I acknowledge the school leaders from the Heritage College, Forrestfield.
I refer to the Office
of Shared Services facility in Cannington. Can the minister please update the
house on the decommissioning of that site?
SHARED SERVICES SITE — CANNINGTON
917. Mr P.T. MILES to the
Minister for Finance:
Before I ask a
question of the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the member for Forrestfield,
I acknowledge the school leaders from the Heritage College, Forrestfield.
I refer to the Office
of Shared Services facility in Cannington. Can the minister please update the
house on the decommissioning of that site?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member
for the question, but first I congratulate the member for Pilbara for a
magnificent job—well done!
The member for Wanneroo is particularly interested in this because he
is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Commerce. I am here today to
announce that the sorry saga of the Office of Shared Services is over. This
week the last agency attached to the Office of Shared Services is moving out of
the Cannington facility and at the end of the month the lights will be turned
off in the building.
It has been a long,
sorry saga that has been the benchmark of the Labor Party's management
of the public sector. I will go through it because a large number of members in
this place were not here at that time.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. I do
not want any more shouting out.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN : In 2003, the then Labor government decided
to bring all backroom office services—human resources, wages and
whatnot—together under one office. According to the then minister Hon John
Kobelke, it was supposed to save hundreds of millions of dollars. It was
supposed to cost $91 million to put up and it would be finished by 2006.
Problems arose immediately and by 2006, when it was supposed to be completed,
the bill had run out to $198 million with an extension. Just one year later,
when it was supposed to be finished and the policy implemented, the cost had
blown out to $435 million. When we came into government and tried to fix Labor's
mess, it was too much of a mess to fix! We submitted it to the Economic
Regulation Authority and asked it what we should do with this thing. The ERA
came out with a report in 2011 that said, ''Close it down!'' The
ERA said that the proposed benefits were always overly optimistic, the true
cost of the project was underestimated and the proposed rollout was not
realistic. The ERA also reported substantial service delivery problems and
minimal cooperation and understanding between agencies that did not augur well
for future operations and it recommended that the centre be decommissioned. In
other words, this project had cost in the vicinity of $525 million to set up
and one of my main tasks is to close it down!
What do we have to show for it? We have zip, nada, nothing! Labor has
had cost control problems on other projects. Perth Arena blew out threefold
from $150 million to $525 million, but at least we have the Arena. Fiona
Stanley Hospital was supposed to cost $400-plus million, but it will cost $1.7 billion—a
four-fold blow-out, but we will have a hospital. I have been criticised, as was
my predecessor, over a threefold cost blow-out with Muja AB, but we have a
power plant that is generating electricity and selling it to the market. What
do we have in this case? We have nada, nothing! And, by the way, it was fully
funded and fully costed! That is Labor Party policy.
for the question, but first I congratulate the member for Pilbara for a
magnificent job—well done!
The member for Wanneroo is particularly interested in this because he
is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Commerce. I am here today to
announce that the sorry saga of the Office of Shared Services is over. This
week the last agency attached to the Office of Shared Services is moving out of
the Cannington facility and at the end of the month the lights will be turned
off in the building.
It has been a long,
sorry saga that has been the benchmark of the Labor Party's management
of the public sector. I will go through it because a large number of members in
this place were not here at that time.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. I do
not want any more shouting out.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN : In 2003, the then Labor government decided
to bring all backroom office services—human resources, wages and
whatnot—together under one office. According to the then minister Hon John
Kobelke, it was supposed to save hundreds of millions of dollars. It was
supposed to cost $91 million to put up and it would be finished by 2006.
Problems arose immediately and by 2006, when it was supposed to be completed,
the bill had run out to $198 million with an extension. Just one year later,
when it was supposed to be finished and the policy implemented, the cost had
blown out to $435 million. When we came into government and tried to fix Labor's
mess, it was too much of a mess to fix! We submitted it to the Economic
Regulation Authority and asked it what we should do with this thing. The ERA
came out with a report in 2011 that said, ''Close it down!'' The
ERA said that the proposed benefits were always overly optimistic, the true
cost of the project was underestimated and the proposed rollout was not
realistic. The ERA also reported substantial service delivery problems and
minimal cooperation and understanding between agencies that did not augur well
for future operations and it recommended that the centre be decommissioned. In
other words, this project had cost in the vicinity of $525 million to set up
and one of my main tasks is to close it down!
What do we have to show for it? We have zip, nada, nothing! Labor has
had cost control problems on other projects. Perth Arena blew out threefold
from $150 million to $525 million, but at least we have the Arena. Fiona
Stanley Hospital was supposed to cost $400-plus million, but it will cost $1.7 billion—a
four-fold blow-out, but we will have a hospital. I have been criticised, as was
my predecessor, over a threefold cost blow-out with Muja AB, but we have a
power plant that is generating electricity and selling it to the market. What
do we have in this case? We have nada, nothing! And, by the way, it was fully
funded and fully costed! That is Labor Party policy.
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.