❓ Question regarding the decision to relocate the new Women's and Babies' Hospital to Fiona Stanley Hospital site due to unacceptable risks at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site. The Minister defends the decision, citing disruptions, parking issues, and risks to existing services.
AnsweredQoN 484Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND BABIES' HOSPITAL —
RELOCATION
484. Ms J.L. HANNS to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
commitment to delivering a new women's and babies' hospital.
(1) Can the
minister outline to the house how the decision to construct the new hospital at
the Fiona Stanley Hospital site compares with the unacceptable risks posed by
constructing it at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether she is aware of anyone who is attempting to
impede the construction of this new hospital?
Mr S.A.
Millman : Great question!
The SPEAKER : Member for Mount
Lawley, we are pleased with your enthusiasm, but not with your interjection.
RELOCATION
484. Ms J.L. HANNS to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Cook Labor government's
commitment to delivering a new women's and babies' hospital.
(1) Can the
minister outline to the house how the decision to construct the new hospital at
the Fiona Stanley Hospital site compares with the unacceptable risks posed by
constructing it at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre site?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether she is aware of anyone who is attempting to
impede the construction of this new hospital?
Mr S.A.
Millman : Great question!
The SPEAKER : Member for Mount
Lawley, we are pleased with your enthusiasm, but not with your interjection.
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
thank the member for Collie–Preston for her question and the member for
Mount Lawley for his enthusiasm.
Unfortunately, there was simply no safe way to build the new maternity hospital
on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre precinct. Stubbornly pushing ahead
with the QEII Medical Centre site would have resulted in up to 20 years of
unacceptable disruptions for patients and staff at both Perth Children's
Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. Current clinical services and
operations at Charlies, which performs
complex surgeries and care, would have been materially and adversely disrupted by the construction activities. That would have resulted in procedures being
delayed or relocated, and many of those procedures require highly technical
equipment that cannot be relocated. It would also impede access to two very
important and busy emergency departments. There would be noise, vibrations and
dust from demolition, all in close proximity to theatres, beds and highly
sensitive medical equipment. They are significant risks that could not be
reasonably mitigated. As a government, we have to consider the needs of all
patients, including the many thousands of people who will need to access
treatment at Perth Children's Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner over
the next two decades.
Then there is the issue of parking.
Around 14 000 people access the site every single day, and expanding the QEII
Medical Centre site parking, which is already necessary under the current
visitor load, has been made extremely
challenging thanks to the contract entered into by the former Liberal–National
government . Staff parking would be
impacted, with a shuttle bus from Graylands the only option. We are seriously
at risk of losing valuable healthcare workers, who do not want to deal with
that disruption and would go elsewhere.
I understand that some clinicians
want the hospital to be built closer to Perth Children's Hospital. Of
course I understand that. I have met with them and am listening to them, as has
the director general. In a perfect world we
would build the maternity hospital next to Perth Children's Hospital,
but the government also did the appropriate due diligence that taxpayers
of Western Australia expect a government to do on a project worth $1.8 billion,
and that due diligence found a range of significant risks that could not be mitigated. The reality is that that site comes
with significant risk. We have to work with what we have got . The
government must not be afraid to make difficult decisions when faced with new
information.
Moving the new maternity hospital to
the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct is not just the right decision for Western Australia; it is the only decision that
could be made in these circumstances. Fiona Stanley Hospital is the
largest tertiary hospital in Western Australia and thousands of babies are
delivered there every year. It is a greenfield site owned by the government,
which means that the government has no need to negotiate or compromise with a third
party. Tri-locating the new maternity hospital with Fiona Stanley Hospital will
ensure direct access to an intensive care unit for women and a neonatal ICU for
neonates. We will also be able to
accommodate two additional multistorey car parks. The government is investing
in doubling the maternity services at Osborne Park Hospital. There will
be a new family birth centre, more maternity wards and more facilities for
neonates, high-risk births and pregnancies to support our growing northern
corridor, as well as a whole range of maternity, gynaecology and oncology
options that will be closer to home for people than ever before. We must play
with the cards that we have been dealt. We now know about the unacceptable
risks of building a new hospital on the QEII site. We do not have a choice
other than to move it to Murdoch.
I draw members' attention to
comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Party in relation to her petition.
She said —
''We are committed to a women's
and baby hospital at the QEII site,'' �
''And
until we see any other evidence to illustrate it should be anywhere else, that
will not change.''
The
Leader of the Liberal Party called for this project to be assessed by the
independent Infrastructure WA. Does the Leader of the Liberal Party
accept the finding that it could result in patient disruption for up to 20 years
on that site? That was the finding of the independent IWA. The Leader of the
Liberal Party now has access to all the
evidence. Will she do the right thing and withdraw the petition? Will the
leader apologise for her comment that without co-location of the two
hospitals, there is likely to be an increase in death and lifelong disability
among vulnerable babies?
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Ms A. SANDERSON : When the Leader of the Liberal Party
says that she does not support the new women's and babies'
hospital being relocated, what she is saying is that she does not support
having more maternity services closer to people's homes—she
does not support the southern corridor having its own maternity hospital, she
does not support the northern corridor having its own maternity hospital and
she does not support regional women having faster access to this hospital
through the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Ms
A. SANDERSON : The Leader of the
Liberal Party supports chaos and construction on the QEII site for two decades.
thank the member for Collie–Preston for her question and the member for
Mount Lawley for his enthusiasm.
Unfortunately, there was simply no safe way to build the new maternity hospital
on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre precinct. Stubbornly pushing ahead
with the QEII Medical Centre site would have resulted in up to 20 years of
unacceptable disruptions for patients and staff at both Perth Children's
Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. Current clinical services and
operations at Charlies, which performs
complex surgeries and care, would have been materially and adversely disrupted by the construction activities. That would have resulted in procedures being
delayed or relocated, and many of those procedures require highly technical
equipment that cannot be relocated. It would also impede access to two very
important and busy emergency departments. There would be noise, vibrations and
dust from demolition, all in close proximity to theatres, beds and highly
sensitive medical equipment. They are significant risks that could not be
reasonably mitigated. As a government, we have to consider the needs of all
patients, including the many thousands of people who will need to access
treatment at Perth Children's Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner over
the next two decades.
Then there is the issue of parking.
Around 14 000 people access the site every single day, and expanding the QEII
Medical Centre site parking, which is already necessary under the current
visitor load, has been made extremely
challenging thanks to the contract entered into by the former Liberal–National
government . Staff parking would be
impacted, with a shuttle bus from Graylands the only option. We are seriously
at risk of losing valuable healthcare workers, who do not want to deal with
that disruption and would go elsewhere.
I understand that some clinicians
want the hospital to be built closer to Perth Children's Hospital. Of
course I understand that. I have met with them and am listening to them, as has
the director general. In a perfect world we
would build the maternity hospital next to Perth Children's Hospital,
but the government also did the appropriate due diligence that taxpayers
of Western Australia expect a government to do on a project worth $1.8 billion,
and that due diligence found a range of significant risks that could not be mitigated. The reality is that that site comes
with significant risk. We have to work with what we have got . The
government must not be afraid to make difficult decisions when faced with new
information.
Moving the new maternity hospital to
the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct is not just the right decision for Western Australia; it is the only decision that
could be made in these circumstances. Fiona Stanley Hospital is the
largest tertiary hospital in Western Australia and thousands of babies are
delivered there every year. It is a greenfield site owned by the government,
which means that the government has no need to negotiate or compromise with a third
party. Tri-locating the new maternity hospital with Fiona Stanley Hospital will
ensure direct access to an intensive care unit for women and a neonatal ICU for
neonates. We will also be able to
accommodate two additional multistorey car parks. The government is investing
in doubling the maternity services at Osborne Park Hospital. There will
be a new family birth centre, more maternity wards and more facilities for
neonates, high-risk births and pregnancies to support our growing northern
corridor, as well as a whole range of maternity, gynaecology and oncology
options that will be closer to home for people than ever before. We must play
with the cards that we have been dealt. We now know about the unacceptable
risks of building a new hospital on the QEII site. We do not have a choice
other than to move it to Murdoch.
I draw members' attention to
comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Party in relation to her petition.
She said —
''We are committed to a women's
and baby hospital at the QEII site,'' �
''And
until we see any other evidence to illustrate it should be anywhere else, that
will not change.''
The
Leader of the Liberal Party called for this project to be assessed by the
independent Infrastructure WA. Does the Leader of the Liberal Party
accept the finding that it could result in patient disruption for up to 20 years
on that site? That was the finding of the independent IWA. The Leader of the
Liberal Party now has access to all the
evidence. Will she do the right thing and withdraw the petition? Will the
leader apologise for her comment that without co-location of the two
hospitals, there is likely to be an increase in death and lifelong disability
among vulnerable babies?
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Ms A. SANDERSON : When the Leader of the Liberal Party
says that she does not support the new women's and babies'
hospital being relocated, what she is saying is that she does not support
having more maternity services closer to people's homes—she
does not support the southern corridor having its own maternity hospital, she
does not support the northern corridor having its own maternity hospital and
she does not support regional women having faster access to this hospital
through the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Ms
A. SANDERSON : The Leader of the
Liberal Party supports chaos and construction on the QEII site for two decades.
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.