❓ Ms. Quirk questions the Minister for Health regarding Infrastructure WA's assessment of the new women's and babies' hospital relocation. The Minister defends the decision to build at Fiona Stanley Hospital, citing the business case against the QEII Medical Centre site and criticizes the opposition's past handling of infrastructure projects.
AnsweredQoN 501Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND BABIES' HOSPITAL —
RELOCATION
501. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to Infrastructure WA's
assessment of the new women's and babies' hospital that will be
built in the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house how irrefutable evidence provided by Infrastructure
WA supports the government's decision not to build the hospital at the
Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre precinct?
(2) Can the minister advise the house whether she is
aware of anyone who does not support Infrastructure WA the providing
government with independent advice?
RELOCATION
501. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to Infrastructure WA's
assessment of the new women's and babies' hospital that will be
built in the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house how irrefutable evidence provided by Infrastructure
WA supports the government's decision not to build the hospital at the
Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre precinct?
(2) Can the minister advise the house whether she is
aware of anyone who does not support Infrastructure WA the providing
government with independent advice?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the
member for the question.
(1)–(2) It
is true that the business case for the new women's and newborns'
hospital at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site provided and outlined
overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that hospital cannot proceed there and
cannot be built safely. It highlighted 32 patient services that would have been
impacted during construction. I quote —
There is a risk that ongoing services
and operations at SCGH —
That is Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital
—
will be materially and adversely
disrupted by construction activities.
In the best-case scenario
construction would take a decade, and this time line is unacceptable to the
government. The business case also highlights risks to safe access to Sir
Charles Gairdner Hospital and Perth Children's
Hospital emergency department, outpatient services, parking and transport
considerations , and maintaining safe workplaces on an extremely
constrained site for staff, including construction crews.
When I tabled the business case
last week, it did not occur to me that I would also need to table an
explanation for the opposition of what a business case actually is and what it
is not. For the sake of the opposition—the Nationals WA and the Liberal
Party—who are asking why the Fiona Stanley Hospital site is not in the
business case for the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site, it is because
that is not the purpose of that business case. We know that members opposite
did not like business cases when it was in
government. They were quite scant. Never mind that there was a $4 billion
contract with Serco Australia . There was no business case because the
opposition did not want to get advice it did not want to hear. For the purposes
of the opposition, international best practice of a business case is —
The business case is a strategic tool
for scoping, planning, and implementing projects, and an aid to effective
decision-making.
�
� a tool to enable an approving body
to decide whether or not to allow a project or programme to go forward;
�
an evidence-based audit trail to
assist transparent decision-making.
That is what a business case is; it
is not an options assessment. We did a business case for a particular project
in a particular location. If it were possible to safely build an additional
hospital on an already busy site, we would. In July, the Premier asked the
independent Infrastructure WA to review the government's decision to
relocate the hospital to Murdoch. Infrastructure WA considered all the planning
documents, engaged with all the agencies involved in delivering the project and
conducted site inspections to inform its own view. In its view, it confirmed
unavoidable risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Other possible sites within the QEII precinct were
investigated but all alternative options carried ''extreme risks ''.
Infrastructure WA also found that the consequential upgrades required at
Charlies and Perth Children's Hospital would ''increase overall
construction time frames and cumulative impacts to service disruption at the
site for 20 years or more.
The member also asked why
Infrastructure WA is important. I want to take members through a brief history. WA Labor first committed to
Infrastructure WA in 2015 when we saw a litany of projects developed by
the former government with no business cases and no planning. We all remember
Metro Area Express and the cancellation of the Ellenbrook rail line. It was
clear that the former government had no clear, coherent infrastructure plan. In
2017, the Langoulant inquiry again recommended that Infrastructure WA be
created. During her contribution in the debate on the Infrastructure Western Australia
Bill in 2019, the member for Vasse said —
I would also like to contribute to
debate on the Infrastructure Western Australia Bill 2019 and acknowledge that
the opposition supports it � It is my understanding that the legislation will
establish IWA as a statutory authority that will provide independent advice to
government on the state's infrastructure needs and priorities. Although
it is only right, appropriate and just for a
bureaucracy to provide such advice � it is also essential that decisions are
made by government.
That was the member for Vasse
speaking in that debate.
The Leader of the Liberal Party
absolutely showed her hypocrisy when she agreed in 2019 that IWA was
independent, but in 2023, she is saying the opposite. On 6PR last Friday, the
member for Vasse said that IWA's assessment of the new women's
and babies' hospital was ''political trickery''. She went
further and said that it basically manipulated the data to support its own
decision.
Mr R.H. Cook : It's a
disgrace.
Ms A. SANDERSON : It is a disgrace.
Infrastructure WA's
assessment made it clear that the QEII site was not appropriate for that kind
of large complex infrastructure. I remind the chamber and the member for Vasse
what happened two months ago in budget estimates when she asked for IWA to
review the government's decision. She requested that IWA review that
decision, and it did. Not only that, the member for Cottesloe suggested we sack
the people who wrote the business case. The Leader of the Liberal Party also
went on 6PR to claim that we should ignore the advice of the director general
and the experts who put together the business case and sack the people who put
together the business case because it did not like the answers. That is the
kind of government that the Liberal and National Party would run.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Ms A. SANDERSON : This
director general has worked under both Liberal and Labor governments—both
governments. He is a doctor who worked for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and
in regional and rural WA. He has commissioned and opened two hospitals. He ran
Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. The experts who delivered the business case to
government provided us with frank and fearless advice. We are absolutely required
to take that decision appropriately and understand that advice and not put the
rest of the health system at risk.
member for the question.
(1)–(2) It
is true that the business case for the new women's and newborns'
hospital at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site provided and outlined
overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that hospital cannot proceed there and
cannot be built safely. It highlighted 32 patient services that would have been
impacted during construction. I quote —
There is a risk that ongoing services
and operations at SCGH —
That is Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital
—
will be materially and adversely
disrupted by construction activities.
In the best-case scenario
construction would take a decade, and this time line is unacceptable to the
government. The business case also highlights risks to safe access to Sir
Charles Gairdner Hospital and Perth Children's
Hospital emergency department, outpatient services, parking and transport
considerations , and maintaining safe workplaces on an extremely
constrained site for staff, including construction crews.
When I tabled the business case
last week, it did not occur to me that I would also need to table an
explanation for the opposition of what a business case actually is and what it
is not. For the sake of the opposition—the Nationals WA and the Liberal
Party—who are asking why the Fiona Stanley Hospital site is not in the
business case for the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site, it is because
that is not the purpose of that business case. We know that members opposite
did not like business cases when it was in
government. They were quite scant. Never mind that there was a $4 billion
contract with Serco Australia . There was no business case because the
opposition did not want to get advice it did not want to hear. For the purposes
of the opposition, international best practice of a business case is —
The business case is a strategic tool
for scoping, planning, and implementing projects, and an aid to effective
decision-making.
�
� a tool to enable an approving body
to decide whether or not to allow a project or programme to go forward;
�
an evidence-based audit trail to
assist transparent decision-making.
That is what a business case is; it
is not an options assessment. We did a business case for a particular project
in a particular location. If it were possible to safely build an additional
hospital on an already busy site, we would. In July, the Premier asked the
independent Infrastructure WA to review the government's decision to
relocate the hospital to Murdoch. Infrastructure WA considered all the planning
documents, engaged with all the agencies involved in delivering the project and
conducted site inspections to inform its own view. In its view, it confirmed
unavoidable risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Other possible sites within the QEII precinct were
investigated but all alternative options carried ''extreme risks ''.
Infrastructure WA also found that the consequential upgrades required at
Charlies and Perth Children's Hospital would ''increase overall
construction time frames and cumulative impacts to service disruption at the
site for 20 years or more.
The member also asked why
Infrastructure WA is important. I want to take members through a brief history. WA Labor first committed to
Infrastructure WA in 2015 when we saw a litany of projects developed by
the former government with no business cases and no planning. We all remember
Metro Area Express and the cancellation of the Ellenbrook rail line. It was
clear that the former government had no clear, coherent infrastructure plan. In
2017, the Langoulant inquiry again recommended that Infrastructure WA be
created. During her contribution in the debate on the Infrastructure Western Australia
Bill in 2019, the member for Vasse said —
I would also like to contribute to
debate on the Infrastructure Western Australia Bill 2019 and acknowledge that
the opposition supports it � It is my understanding that the legislation will
establish IWA as a statutory authority that will provide independent advice to
government on the state's infrastructure needs and priorities. Although
it is only right, appropriate and just for a
bureaucracy to provide such advice � it is also essential that decisions are
made by government.
That was the member for Vasse
speaking in that debate.
The Leader of the Liberal Party
absolutely showed her hypocrisy when she agreed in 2019 that IWA was
independent, but in 2023, she is saying the opposite. On 6PR last Friday, the
member for Vasse said that IWA's assessment of the new women's
and babies' hospital was ''political trickery''. She went
further and said that it basically manipulated the data to support its own
decision.
Mr R.H. Cook : It's a
disgrace.
Ms A. SANDERSON : It is a disgrace.
Infrastructure WA's
assessment made it clear that the QEII site was not appropriate for that kind
of large complex infrastructure. I remind the chamber and the member for Vasse
what happened two months ago in budget estimates when she asked for IWA to
review the government's decision. She requested that IWA review that
decision, and it did. Not only that, the member for Cottesloe suggested we sack
the people who wrote the business case. The Leader of the Liberal Party also
went on 6PR to claim that we should ignore the advice of the director general
and the experts who put together the business case and sack the people who put
together the business case because it did not like the answers. That is the
kind of government that the Liberal and National Party would run.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Ms A. SANDERSON : This
director general has worked under both Liberal and Labor governments—both
governments. He is a doctor who worked for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and
in regional and rural WA. He has commissioned and opened two hospitals. He ran
Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. The experts who delivered the business case to
government provided us with frank and fearless advice. We are absolutely required
to take that decision appropriately and understand that advice and not put the
rest of the health system at risk.
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.