❓ Opposition questions the Premier about the decision to relocate the women's and babies' hospital to Murdoch, citing leaked documents outlining neonatal risks. The Premier defends the decision, highlighting conflicting clinical advice and practical challenges with alternative sites.
AnsweredQoN 787Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
787. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the new, leaked King
Edward Memorial Hospital for Women correspondence to the director general of Health, Dr Russell-Weisz, that outlines the
significant neonatal risks proposed by the separation of the new women's and babies' hospital from quaternary paediatric services provided at
Perth Children's Hospital.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
Ms L. METTAM : Given this
letter states the Child and Adolescent Health Service has written to the
government at least four times since 19 April 2023 to outline inherent risks of
this decision, including neonatal mortality and morbidity, workforce
recruitment —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
Ms L. METTAM : — retention
and training implications, how can the Premier justify his decision regarding
the Murdoch site and claim he is putting patients first?
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Before I give
the Premier the call, member for Landsdale, your interjections were incessant
during that question.
Ms M.M. QUIRK : I am just
following the example of the member for Vasse.
The
SPEAKER : I did not give you the
call and you should not have risen to your feet or spoken without being given the call, member for Landsdale. Member for Vasse, your question was very
lengthy and very wordy. I think you should give some thought to the questions
that you ask and how they are phrased, but I call the Premier in response.
BABIES' HOSPITAL — RELOCATION
787. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the new, leaked King
Edward Memorial Hospital for Women correspondence to the director general of Health, Dr Russell-Weisz, that outlines the
significant neonatal risks proposed by the separation of the new women's and babies' hospital from quaternary paediatric services provided at
Perth Children's Hospital.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
Ms L. METTAM : Given this
letter states the Child and Adolescent Health Service has written to the
government at least four times since 19 April 2023 to outline inherent risks of
this decision, including neonatal mortality and morbidity, workforce
recruitment —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
Ms L. METTAM : — retention
and training implications, how can the Premier justify his decision regarding
the Murdoch site and claim he is putting patients first?
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Before I give
the Premier the call, member for Landsdale, your interjections were incessant
during that question.
Ms M.M. QUIRK : I am just
following the example of the member for Vasse.
The
SPEAKER : I did not give you the
call and you should not have risen to your feet or spoken without being given the call, member for Landsdale. Member for Vasse, your question was very
lengthy and very wordy. I think you should give some thought to the questions
that you ask and how they are phrased, but I call the Premier in response.
AnswerView source ↗
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minister for Health and I respect the points of view raised by the clinicians
in the document, but this is not a universally
held view. We appreciate the sincerity and the passion in which it is held , but it is not the only view that is out
there. The member for Vasse really should understand that particular
perspective. We absolutely want to
consider sensible solutions to ensure we deliver the best possible services for
women and babies. But I understand this particular document is not a complete
document—as in, it is in draft form. My understanding is that it is not
an official document of the Child and Adolescent Health Service but I understand
the points of view that are in it.
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Mr
R.H. COOK : For instance, one of
the solutions proposed in the report is that we should, firstly, relocate Perth Children's Hospital to Murdoch to be with the women's and
babies' hospital or, secondly, that we should demolish all the residential housing on the other side of Monash Avenue
and build the women's and babies' hospital there.
Clearly, these are not practical solutions, but we understand that they are
passionately held views. That is why we continue to make sure we work with all
clinicians to understand those views and to identify any issues and move
forward in a way that is informed. As I said, clinicians at Fiona Stanley
Hospital have been providing expert maternity and neonatal care since that
service was opened.
The Minister for Health raised
yesterday in Parliament that she had received correspondence from clinicians
working in neonatology at Fiona Stanley Hospital. They say, amongst other
things —
We are writing to you � regarding the
recent announcement of the development of the new Mother & Babies' Hospital at Fiona Stanley Hospital
� We, as tertiary neonatal intensive care clinicians � welcome this important
decision for the Western Australian � people by the WA Government.
�
We are deeply concerned about the
potential for unsubstantiated reputational damage to Fiona Stanley Fremantle
Hospital group these will cause, as well as the unnecessary and frankly,
irresponsible level of public anxiety they will cause the Western Australian
public, in particular those families attending FSH for perinatal care.
This is a very extensive letter from
the experts who work in this field and it is heartfelt. This goes to the fact
that there are a range of views out there in relation to that. The government's
role is to make sure we take on all the advice. Sometimes that advice does not
concur and agree, but we need to take on all the advice and make sure that we take decisions in the best interests of Western
Australian patients and Western Australian taxpayers. We continue to be
informed in relation to these things. The member opposite has made much of my
comments in 2019, which is another example of how she selects evidence by way
of convenience rather than by way of rigour. She takes my comments from around
2019 as being what should be set in stone in terms of the government's
opinion. The thing about government is that
things change; the facts change. It is important to take the opportunity to
listen to the advice we receive. We received the business case and the
project development plan, which we tabled, that show there would be
insurmountable issues at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre if we were to
develop the new women's and babies' hospital at the Sir Charles
Gairdner Hospital building. We also have received an independent review from
Infrastructure Western Australia, which the member for Vasse called for, that
shows the excessive delays and issues associated with developing the project at
that site. I hope, Madam Speaker, with your indulgence if I may, I can quickly
show to the chamber two pictures. One is of the QEII site in 2004 and the other
in 2023. The circles represent all the developments that have taken place on
that side since the Reid review brought out its findings.
We have seen the development of the
multistorey car park, Perth Children's Hospital, Ronald McDonald House,
significant upgrades in term of power infrastructure taking away further parts
of the footprint, the Ralph Sarich building, and the Harry Perkins Institute of
Medical Research. This is a particularly constrained site.
In
some respects, I would love to have seen the Reid review come out in full
throat, and that we implemented all those things. The Reid review came out and
everyone got behind it. The Reid review called for the closure of Royal
Perth Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review said that the trauma unit
should be transferred to Fiona Stanley
Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review said that the women's
and babies' hospital should be developed at the QEII site before Perth
Children's Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review was silent on
the privatisation of parking at the QEII site. I do not think Mick Reid thought
that any government would be crazy enough to do that, but that has happened. We
are now left with the facts as they are today. We do not have a perfect world
in which we operate. I wish we did,
but we do not, and so we are making a decision in the interests of Western Australians , and that is about bringing the new women's
and babies' hospital onstream now. Mick Reid said in 2004 that we should
be moving the women's and babies' hospital. That was in 2004.
We are in 2023, almost two decades later, and we still have not got there, yet
the solution of the member for Vasse is to delay it by another two decades.
King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women has
the most outstanding clinicians working in it, but they are working in a building
that is over a century old and it is time we take the responsible step and move
forward in this manner. This is on the basis of the best advice. We understand
there is a lot of clinical concern, anxiety and passion out there, but we have
to take on all the advice, the expert advice, and that is why, with a clear
head, we are making this decision.
Minister for Health and I respect the points of view raised by the clinicians
in the document, but this is not a universally
held view. We appreciate the sincerity and the passion in which it is held , but it is not the only view that is out
there. The member for Vasse really should understand that particular
perspective. We absolutely want to
consider sensible solutions to ensure we deliver the best possible services for
women and babies. But I understand this particular document is not a complete
document—as in, it is in draft form. My understanding is that it is not
an official document of the Child and Adolescent Health Service but I understand
the points of view that are in it.
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please.
Mr
R.H. COOK : For instance, one of
the solutions proposed in the report is that we should, firstly, relocate Perth Children's Hospital to Murdoch to be with the women's and
babies' hospital or, secondly, that we should demolish all the residential housing on the other side of Monash Avenue
and build the women's and babies' hospital there.
Clearly, these are not practical solutions, but we understand that they are
passionately held views. That is why we continue to make sure we work with all
clinicians to understand those views and to identify any issues and move
forward in a way that is informed. As I said, clinicians at Fiona Stanley
Hospital have been providing expert maternity and neonatal care since that
service was opened.
The Minister for Health raised
yesterday in Parliament that she had received correspondence from clinicians
working in neonatology at Fiona Stanley Hospital. They say, amongst other
things —
We are writing to you � regarding the
recent announcement of the development of the new Mother & Babies' Hospital at Fiona Stanley Hospital
� We, as tertiary neonatal intensive care clinicians � welcome this important
decision for the Western Australian � people by the WA Government.
�
We are deeply concerned about the
potential for unsubstantiated reputational damage to Fiona Stanley Fremantle
Hospital group these will cause, as well as the unnecessary and frankly,
irresponsible level of public anxiety they will cause the Western Australian
public, in particular those families attending FSH for perinatal care.
This is a very extensive letter from
the experts who work in this field and it is heartfelt. This goes to the fact
that there are a range of views out there in relation to that. The government's
role is to make sure we take on all the advice. Sometimes that advice does not
concur and agree, but we need to take on all the advice and make sure that we take decisions in the best interests of Western
Australian patients and Western Australian taxpayers. We continue to be
informed in relation to these things. The member opposite has made much of my
comments in 2019, which is another example of how she selects evidence by way
of convenience rather than by way of rigour. She takes my comments from around
2019 as being what should be set in stone in terms of the government's
opinion. The thing about government is that
things change; the facts change. It is important to take the opportunity to
listen to the advice we receive. We received the business case and the
project development plan, which we tabled, that show there would be
insurmountable issues at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre if we were to
develop the new women's and babies' hospital at the Sir Charles
Gairdner Hospital building. We also have received an independent review from
Infrastructure Western Australia, which the member for Vasse called for, that
shows the excessive delays and issues associated with developing the project at
that site. I hope, Madam Speaker, with your indulgence if I may, I can quickly
show to the chamber two pictures. One is of the QEII site in 2004 and the other
in 2023. The circles represent all the developments that have taken place on
that side since the Reid review brought out its findings.
We have seen the development of the
multistorey car park, Perth Children's Hospital, Ronald McDonald House,
significant upgrades in term of power infrastructure taking away further parts
of the footprint, the Ralph Sarich building, and the Harry Perkins Institute of
Medical Research. This is a particularly constrained site.
In
some respects, I would love to have seen the Reid review come out in full
throat, and that we implemented all those things. The Reid review came out and
everyone got behind it. The Reid review called for the closure of Royal
Perth Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review said that the trauma unit
should be transferred to Fiona Stanley
Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review said that the women's
and babies' hospital should be developed at the QEII site before Perth
Children's Hospital. That did not happen. The Reid review was silent on
the privatisation of parking at the QEII site. I do not think Mick Reid thought
that any government would be crazy enough to do that, but that has happened. We
are now left with the facts as they are today. We do not have a perfect world
in which we operate. I wish we did,
but we do not, and so we are making a decision in the interests of Western Australians , and that is about bringing the new women's
and babies' hospital onstream now. Mick Reid said in 2004 that we should
be moving the women's and babies' hospital. That was in 2004.
We are in 2023, almost two decades later, and we still have not got there, yet
the solution of the member for Vasse is to delay it by another two decades.
King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women has
the most outstanding clinicians working in it, but they are working in a building
that is over a century old and it is time we take the responsible step and move
forward in this manner. This is on the basis of the best advice. We understand
there is a lot of clinical concern, anxiety and passion out there, but we have
to take on all the advice, the expert advice, and that is why, with a clear
head, we are making this decision.
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.