❓ Ms McHale questions the Health Minister about the extended reporting date for the King Edward Memorial Hospital inquiry and the appointment of panel members with scheduling conflicts. The Minister defends the extension and appointments, citing the inquiry's needs and the importance of impartiality.
AnsweredQoN 205Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN, EXTENSION OF REPORTING DATE OF INQUIRY
(1) Why did the minister grant the inquiry into King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women a nine-month extension to its reporting date when the inquiry had advised him that only another four months was necessary? (2) Why did the minister appoint to the inquiry panel people who would not be available throughout September, when the initial reporting date was 29 September? (3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY
(1) Why did the minister grant the inquiry into King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women a nine-month extension to its reporting date when the inquiry had advised him that only another four months was necessary? (2) Why did the minister appoint to the inquiry panel people who would not be available throughout September, when the initial reporting date was 29 September? (3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(2) Why did the minister appoint to the inquiry panel people who would not be available throughout September, when the initial reporting date was 29 September? (3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(2) Why did the minister appoint to the inquiry panel people who would not be available throughout September, when the initial reporting date was 29 September? (3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(3) What has the inquiry been doing for the past four months? Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Mr DAY replied: (1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
(1)-(3) Yesterday I gave the reasons for agreeing to this extension of time, and I gave in some detail the reasons that the members of the inquiry considered that additional amount of time to be necessary. I went through those reasons clearly, and it was put out publicly as a media statement later yesterday afternoon. To reiterate, I said yesterday that the inquiry had advised that at least another four months would be necessary for the process of making a comparison between the statistical outcomes at King Edward Memorial Hospital and the outcomes at equivalent hospitals elsewhere in Australia. In addition, further time was necessary for particular clinical cases to be examined fully; and while those two processes can occur concurrently, a total of nine months was necessary. I hope that makes it clear to the member for Thornlie. The inquiry did not request simply another four months. It requested an additional nine months in total. Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Ms McHale: Did it request an extension to the end of June? Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
Mr DAY: Yes. It requested an extension to 29 June 2001, and that is what was agreed to by the Government. Three people have been appointed to the inquiry panel. One is Neil Douglas, a lawyer, who is from Western Australia; the other two, Professor Jeffrey Robinson, an obstetrician, and Dr Kathleen Fahy, an obstetrician, are from outside Western Australia. It was considered necessary that those two professional experts be from outside Western Australia so that there could not be any suggestion of bias or conflict of interest in their judgments; and I thought that would be something the Opposition would support. One of those two persons made it clear from the start that he would not be available during September. Frankly, it was a matter of, first, who was available, and, second, who was competent to undertake this rather difficult and onerous task, bearing in mind the view was that those people should be from outside Western Australia. I am grateful to the two people who were approached and who agreed to contribute a significant amount of time and effort on their part to undertake this important process of ensuring that there is public confidence in the services provided at King Edward Memorial Hospital in the long-term. One obstetrician had previously been appointed, but unfortunately, because of an additional appointment that he had been given at the University of Newcastle, he had to pull out. I hope that makes it clear to the Opposition why we appointed those people; and I and the Government are appreciative of the fact that they have been prepared to take on this task.
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.