❓ Opposition questions the WA Labor government's decision to change the location of the new Women's and Babies' Hospital, despite the business case favouring the QEII site. The Premier defends the decision citing complexity and delays.
AnsweredQoN 488Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
488. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the tabling of the
business case and project definition plan for the new women's and
babies' hospital today. The business case states that the preferred
option was the north option on the site of the existing Sir Charles Gairdner
Hospital E-block and that this would deliver the primary clinical objective of
the project, being improving safety and quality care for women and newborns by
removing the need for critical care transfers.
(1) How did the
WA Labor government make the decision to change sites when the business case
clearly highlights the benefits of maintaining the co-location at Queen
Elizabeth II Medical Centre?
Ms A. Sanderson interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Ms L. METTAM : And —
(2) Given the
Premier has previously stated that it is a complex project on a constrained
site, and ''It will be a difficult project but it is one we need to do'',
why has the government decided this is now too hard?
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
488. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the tabling of the
business case and project definition plan for the new women's and
babies' hospital today. The business case states that the preferred
option was the north option on the site of the existing Sir Charles Gairdner
Hospital E-block and that this would deliver the primary clinical objective of
the project, being improving safety and quality care for women and newborns by
removing the need for critical care transfers.
(1) How did the
WA Labor government make the decision to change sites when the business case
clearly highlights the benefits of maintaining the co-location at Queen
Elizabeth II Medical Centre?
Ms A. Sanderson interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Ms L. METTAM : And —
(2) Given the
Premier has previously stated that it is a complex project on a constrained
site, and ''It will be a difficult project but it is one we need to do'',
why has the government decided this is now too hard?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) That
question was longer than my first answer! I thank the member for it. Can I also
say that I want the best team to win this weekend. Obviously, we want the
Matildas to win on Saturday and we want the best team in purple to win on
Saturday as well!
Several members interjected.
Mr R.H. COOK : Can I commend the Leader of the House
and the member for Fremantle for their scarves today.
The SPEAKER : Premier, if you're
going to keep that up, you might be sat down!
Mr R.H. COOK : This is an
important project and we know that renewing our tertiary and quaternary women's
and babies' services is a long-term project for Western Australia. This
goes back to the Reid review. It said what should be done in the first instance
is move the women's and babies' hospital to QEII and then, at
some point in time, move the children's hospital to QEII so there would
be that connectivity. That is a connectivity we have all acknowledged, over
time, is important and would serve us well.
The fact of the matter is that
members of the previous government made a different decision. They decided they
would chase votes by developing a new babies' hospital on the QEII site
first. We acknowledge that that was a popular decision and we acknowledge it is
a great hospital, albeit the opposition had to wait till we were elected before
we could open it. What happened was, once we get into these constrained
environments, these projects get extremely complex. Legacy infrastructure that
people were not aware of is discovered and the campus that is being operated on
is significantly disrupted. You find yourself in a situation where the project
becomes unbelievably complex. As the Minister for Health said, you deal with
the cards that are dealt. The fact of the matter is that the $1.8 billion women's
and babies' hospital at the QEII site was becoming overly complex and
expensive. We spend money on health so I do not begrudge the need to spend
money on health. That is important, but because of the complexity of the
project, it was going to significantly delay the commissioning of the new women's
and babies' hospital. Do not forget
that the Reid report, all those years ago, said that the urgent need of
infrastructure development was to move the women's and babies'
hospital. If we roll forward two decades later, we still do not have a new
women's and babies' hospital. The decision that you make is the
decision based upon the evidence that is put in front of you. You seek the
evidence and then you make a decision—tough decisions, but decisions
nevertheless that need to be made. The member for Vasse and the member for
Central Wheatbelt called for this project to be reviewed by Infrastructure Western
Australia to undertake an independent —
Ms L. Mettam : Not after the
decision was made.
Ms A. Sanderson : Yes, you
did.
Ms L. Mettam : We asked if it
had been reviewed.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Mr R.H. COOK : No, member for
Vasse. What you said in estimates was, I quote —
Will Infrastructure Western Australia
have a role in assessing how the decision that we have heard about recently in
relation to the women's and babies' hospital was made and in
looking at the business case, which is yet to be made public?
Of course, it was made public today.
The member for Central Wheatbelt
said —
� flick it through to Infrastructure
WA just in the spirit of the legislation you introduced yourself �
That is exactly what we did. We sent
it to Infrastructure Western Australia and it made two very key observations.
The first was that developing the hospital on the QEII site would involve
significant and material interruption to the delivery of other health services
on that site. It made the observation that —
� construction and deliverability
risks at the QEIIMC site were sufficiently material to justify the decision to
consider alternative site options for the construction of the new WBH,
particularly in light of the urgency to relocate the ageing KEMH.
That is a significant point because
although the business case says we could develop the new women's and
babies' hospital on the current site by 2034, Infrastructure WA said
that is incredibly ambitious and we could potentially be looking at another two
decades before the hospital is developed on that site. That is two decades too
many. It is just too much.
Dr D.J. Honey : This is
rubbish. Sack your engineers for God's sake—10 years you say!
Mr R.H. COOK : The
interjection by the member for Cottesloe goes to the heart of the problem we
have found ourselves in in government. That is, these guys, when they get in,
are complete wreckers. They have no respect for
the finances, no respect for proper planning, no respect for reports that
advise and they just go about willy-nilly . That is what John Langoulant
found in his special inquiry. It said —
Too many major projects have been
undertaken on an ad hoc basis and without adequate planning. Cost and time
blowouts have been common outcomes. The lack of a comprehensive and long term
plan to develop the State's infrastructure has contributed to these
outcomes.
That is what we get from those
opposite: reckless neglect of proper planning and financial controls, which is
the reason that we had record-level debts and deficit budgets by the time we
came in.
We need to look no further
than the Fiona Stanley Hospital debacle. This is another observation by John
Langoulant . He says —
The absence of a stand-alone business
case to underpin the $4.3 billion Serco contract was the worst case of
financial risk taking for the State to be reviewed by the Special Inquirer.
That speaks volumes about those
opposite. They were absolutely reckless. I am yet, and shall not because we do
not have time, to dig into the costs associated with the privatisation of car
park services at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre. Compensation to the company
alone at the moment sits at just shy of $40 million. That is money we have
stuck into the proponent's pockets, not for parking but for compensation
for the contract that was a noose put around the neck of the WA public forever
thus by this mob opposite. We want to see the development of a new women's
and babies' hospital as quickly as possible. All the advice we have
continues to say that we now need to move it
to Fiona Stanley Hospital and thus that is what we have to do. We will continue
to consult with the community and clinicians and, as the Minister for
Health said earlier, extensively redevelop the delivery of maternity services
in the northern suburbs. These are the sorts of decisions that responsible
governments take.
question was longer than my first answer! I thank the member for it. Can I also
say that I want the best team to win this weekend. Obviously, we want the
Matildas to win on Saturday and we want the best team in purple to win on
Saturday as well!
Several members interjected.
Mr R.H. COOK : Can I commend the Leader of the House
and the member for Fremantle for their scarves today.
The SPEAKER : Premier, if you're
going to keep that up, you might be sat down!
Mr R.H. COOK : This is an
important project and we know that renewing our tertiary and quaternary women's
and babies' services is a long-term project for Western Australia. This
goes back to the Reid review. It said what should be done in the first instance
is move the women's and babies' hospital to QEII and then, at
some point in time, move the children's hospital to QEII so there would
be that connectivity. That is a connectivity we have all acknowledged, over
time, is important and would serve us well.
The fact of the matter is that
members of the previous government made a different decision. They decided they
would chase votes by developing a new babies' hospital on the QEII site
first. We acknowledge that that was a popular decision and we acknowledge it is
a great hospital, albeit the opposition had to wait till we were elected before
we could open it. What happened was, once we get into these constrained
environments, these projects get extremely complex. Legacy infrastructure that
people were not aware of is discovered and the campus that is being operated on
is significantly disrupted. You find yourself in a situation where the project
becomes unbelievably complex. As the Minister for Health said, you deal with
the cards that are dealt. The fact of the matter is that the $1.8 billion women's
and babies' hospital at the QEII site was becoming overly complex and
expensive. We spend money on health so I do not begrudge the need to spend
money on health. That is important, but because of the complexity of the
project, it was going to significantly delay the commissioning of the new women's
and babies' hospital. Do not forget
that the Reid report, all those years ago, said that the urgent need of
infrastructure development was to move the women's and babies'
hospital. If we roll forward two decades later, we still do not have a new
women's and babies' hospital. The decision that you make is the
decision based upon the evidence that is put in front of you. You seek the
evidence and then you make a decision—tough decisions, but decisions
nevertheless that need to be made. The member for Vasse and the member for
Central Wheatbelt called for this project to be reviewed by Infrastructure Western
Australia to undertake an independent —
Ms L. Mettam : Not after the
decision was made.
Ms A. Sanderson : Yes, you
did.
Ms L. Mettam : We asked if it
had been reviewed.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Mr R.H. COOK : No, member for
Vasse. What you said in estimates was, I quote —
Will Infrastructure Western Australia
have a role in assessing how the decision that we have heard about recently in
relation to the women's and babies' hospital was made and in
looking at the business case, which is yet to be made public?
Of course, it was made public today.
The member for Central Wheatbelt
said —
� flick it through to Infrastructure
WA just in the spirit of the legislation you introduced yourself �
That is exactly what we did. We sent
it to Infrastructure Western Australia and it made two very key observations.
The first was that developing the hospital on the QEII site would involve
significant and material interruption to the delivery of other health services
on that site. It made the observation that —
� construction and deliverability
risks at the QEIIMC site were sufficiently material to justify the decision to
consider alternative site options for the construction of the new WBH,
particularly in light of the urgency to relocate the ageing KEMH.
That is a significant point because
although the business case says we could develop the new women's and
babies' hospital on the current site by 2034, Infrastructure WA said
that is incredibly ambitious and we could potentially be looking at another two
decades before the hospital is developed on that site. That is two decades too
many. It is just too much.
Dr D.J. Honey : This is
rubbish. Sack your engineers for God's sake—10 years you say!
Mr R.H. COOK : The
interjection by the member for Cottesloe goes to the heart of the problem we
have found ourselves in in government. That is, these guys, when they get in,
are complete wreckers. They have no respect for
the finances, no respect for proper planning, no respect for reports that
advise and they just go about willy-nilly . That is what John Langoulant
found in his special inquiry. It said —
Too many major projects have been
undertaken on an ad hoc basis and without adequate planning. Cost and time
blowouts have been common outcomes. The lack of a comprehensive and long term
plan to develop the State's infrastructure has contributed to these
outcomes.
That is what we get from those
opposite: reckless neglect of proper planning and financial controls, which is
the reason that we had record-level debts and deficit budgets by the time we
came in.
We need to look no further
than the Fiona Stanley Hospital debacle. This is another observation by John
Langoulant . He says —
The absence of a stand-alone business
case to underpin the $4.3 billion Serco contract was the worst case of
financial risk taking for the State to be reviewed by the Special Inquirer.
That speaks volumes about those
opposite. They were absolutely reckless. I am yet, and shall not because we do
not have time, to dig into the costs associated with the privatisation of car
park services at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre. Compensation to the company
alone at the moment sits at just shy of $40 million. That is money we have
stuck into the proponent's pockets, not for parking but for compensation
for the contract that was a noose put around the neck of the WA public forever
thus by this mob opposite. We want to see the development of a new women's
and babies' hospital as quickly as possible. All the advice we have
continues to say that we now need to move it
to Fiona Stanley Hospital and thus that is what we have to do. We will continue
to consult with the community and clinicians and, as the Minister for
Health said earlier, extensively redevelop the delivery of maternity services
in the northern suburbs. These are the sorts of decisions that responsible
governments take.
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.