❓ A parliamentary question addresses staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the extension of the ministerial inquiry's reporting date. The Minister refutes claims of inadequate staffing and confirms the inquiry extension to June 29, 2001.
AnsweredQoN 200Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Does the minister accept the criticisms by staff at the King Edward Memorial Hospital that there has been no real increase in staffing since the allegations of clinical problems were first made public seven months ago? (2) Has Cabinet now agreed to an extension of the reporting date for the ministerial inquiry? If yes, what is the date; and if no, why not? Mr DAY
AnswerView source ↗
The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(2) Has Cabinet now agreed to an extension of the reporting date for the ministerial inquiry? If yes, what is the date; and if no, why not? Mr DAY replied: The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
Mr DAY replied: The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(2) Has Cabinet now agreed to an extension of the reporting date for the ministerial inquiry? If yes, what is the date; and if no, why not? Mr DAY replied: The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
Mr DAY replied: The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
The question raises two somewhat related but really quite distinct issues. (1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(1) An article in The West Australian asserted that staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital had not changed since recommendations were made in 1990. It was suggested that the report had been shelved and "things had got worse since then". The suggestion is that only three obstetric and gynaecology residents are now at the hospital; in fact, approximately 15 full-time obstetrics and gynaecology residents are currently on the staff at the hospital. That exceeds the recommendations that were attributed to the chairman of the review undertaken in 1990. The claim was made that seven additional consultant positions were required, which would have elevated the total to 11.6 FTEs. I am advised that currently King Edward Memorial Hospital has approximately 11.8 FTE consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, the hospital has approximately 14.5 FTE obstetrics and gynaecology registrars on the staff. Contrary to the reports and the rather mischievous suggestions that have been made by some individuals, the staffing levels at King Edward Memorial Hospital are very good. They have certainly been attended to since that report was undertaken about a decade ago. (2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
(2) Cabinet has approved an extension to the time for the inquiry to report. By way of background, the inquiry has made it clear that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its tasks. The two main tasks of the inquiry in essence involve: First, making a comparison between clinical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and other similar hospitals in Australia; and second, examining particular clinical cases. The inquiry team has advised that at least another four months will be needed to complete the comparison with other hospitals. It has also advised that examining particular cases will involve a number of different steps, including the examination of clinical records by a midwife or clinical nurse specialist and an obstetrician, gynaecologist, neonatologist or anaesthetist; formulating the inquiry's hearing procedures; reviewing the hospital's written accountabilities, policies, procedures and practices; reviewing and analysing clinicians' reports where necessary; preparing particular cases for hearing, including interviewing witnesses and preparing witness statements where appropriate; the hearing of cases; and closing submissions by counsel assisting and others. I am giving the background so that members can understand the whole reason for the decision that has been made. Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
Finally, there is the writing of the report. Both the processes of the comparison with other hospitals and the examination of particular cases will be able to occur concurrently. It is also important to bear in mind that one of the panel members is unavailable throughout this month, and also the Christmas holiday period will have the effect of delaying the reporting time somewhat. Consequently, the inquiry has suggested an extension of time to 29 June 2001 to complete the tasks it considers necessary. That extension has been agreed to by Cabinet.
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.