❓ Ms. Mettam questions the Premier about Infrastructure WA's review of the decision to relocate the women's and babies' hospital, specifically regarding the exclusion of clinical services and operational planning benefits. The Premier deflects initially, then defends the review process and accuses Ms. Mettam of hypocrisy.
AnsweredQoN 505Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND BABIES' HOSPITAL —INFRASTRUCTURE
WESTERN AUSTRALIA REVIEW
505. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to Infrastructure WA's
review report of the WA Labor government's decision to abandon plans to
co-locate the women's and babies' hospital with Perth Children's
Hospital at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre in favour of the Fiona Stanley
Hospital precinct. Can the Premier explain why Infrastructure WA failed to
include clinical services and operational planning benefits as part of its
review into this government's decision?
WESTERN AUSTRALIA REVIEW
505. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to Infrastructure WA's
review report of the WA Labor government's decision to abandon plans to
co-locate the women's and babies' hospital with Perth Children's
Hospital at Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre in favour of the Fiona Stanley
Hospital precinct. Can the Premier explain why Infrastructure WA failed to
include clinical services and operational planning benefits as part of its
review into this government's decision?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question,
because it gives me the opportunity to mention that tomorrow night, the
government is throwing open the gates of HBF Park to allow members of the
public to watch the big game on the big screen and soak up the atmosphere and
celebrate the Matildas. That is, of course, in addition to our fan zone at Forrest Chase, which, of course, has been well
attended throughout the competition. It will be another exciting day for
Western Australia, and I am sure that everyone will be busting a gut and
looking forward to getting down there.
Mr D.A. Templeman : Or they
can come here for the private members' business of the opposition! I know
where I'm going to be.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Sorry. I might
have to caution the Leader of the House for bringing this house into disrepute.
The Premier.
Mr R.H. COOK : Madam Speaker,
I am with the member for Roe; every one of us will be paying attention to the
important issues raised in this place, but we will all have half an eye on the
Matildas game at the same time.
Once again, the member goes to the issue of the
Infrastructure WA review of the business case of the decision to move the women's
and babies' hospital to the Fiona Stanley Hospital site. Of course,
this was something called for by the member for Vasse, along with the member
for Central Wheatbelt. In estimates this year, they insisted that the report be
sent to Infrastructure WA as part of an independent review of the business
case, which is perfectly appropriate. The member for Vasse knows that it is
appropriate, as the Minister for Health outlined, because in her contribution
on 21 March 2019 she was quite effusive about the work of Infrastructure WA as
an independent body to review the government's decisions about
infrastructure. The member said —
� independent advice to government on
the state's infrastructure needs and priorities. Although it is only
right, appropriate and just for a bureaucracy to provide such advice, and there
is much support for this legislation, it is also essential that decisions are
made by government.
We agree with the member for Vasse
that it is important that Infrastructure WA has an opportunity to review these
decisions so that we can have proper oversight and ensure that we can continue
to be confident of the decisions made, test the robustness of these business
cases and make proper decisions in the interests of Western Australia. The
member for Vasse cannot have it both ways. She cannot, on the one hand, support
the legislative process that establishes that
independent review and continue to support that independent process by calling,
very recently, for the business case to be reviewed by Infrastructure WA
and then say, as she did during an interview on 6PR on 11 August, that
Infrastructure WA's independent assessment of the business case was ''political
trickery''. Here we have someone who will do anything and say anything
for a cheap political grab. That reminds me of another decision she made
recently, a very important decision. She is flippity-floppity in making
decisions simply because ''The Clan''
has decided that it does not like her line in relation to something else. She
chases that little opportunity —
Point of Order
Ms L. METTAM : I have a point
of order.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order please,
members! Members, I remind you that points of order are heard in silence. The
Leader of the Liberal Party.
Ms L.
METTAM : Not only are the comments from the Premier wholly incorrect —
The SPEAKER : Sorry; this is
not an opportunity to debate the points that he has made. You have to make a point
of order.
Ms L. METTAM : His comments
are not relevant or factual.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Landsdale! Members, I am not upholding that point of order. The Premier.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr R.H. COOK : I am surprised
that the member is so thin-skinned on this issue because I have not actually
said what the issue is! I have not got there yet, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the
member for Vasse is used to being criticised for saying and doing anything for
the latest cheap political grab in the media. It is a pity that she does this
on such important policy issues about where
we have the new women's and babies' hospital. It is shameless
that the member comes into this place and thinks she can say anything
here and to the media as though no-one remembers what she said yesterday. They
know what they are listening to today and they remember what the member said
yesterday. Member for Vasse, I think they are onto you; we are certainly onto
you.
During
her interview on 6PR radio, she went on to say that IWA had manipulated data to
support its decision. Here we have someone who touted for the
independent body and called for the business case to be referred to the
independent body, and now that she does not like the answer, she calls into
question the absolute integrity of Infrastructure WA by saying that it
manipulated the data—what an outrageous accusation! She said that IWA
had simply ''justified the captain's call''. What a pathetic
analysis. It is symbolic of what the member for Vasse is prepared to do or say
to simply get the grab today. Opposition members will chase the grab tomorrow
and it could be completely different from what they said yesterday. The member
for Vasse also criticised the director general of Health—a director
general whom her side of government actually appointed. It was a Liberal
government appointment. I admit that he is one of the best directors general of
WA Health this state has ever had.
The member for Vasse also said that
the director general of Health is simply saying what they want to hear. What an
appalling accusation to make. The member can attack us; she can say what she
likes about the government, but she should not go attacking public servants who
work with integrity day in, day out delivering on their mandate, particularly
those in Infrastructure WA. This is the same director general of Health who
overcame the challenges when Fiona Stanley Hospital was opened, who dealt with
the previous government's stuff-ups around the Perth Children's
Hospital and who ran Fiona Stanley Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.
He is a man of great integrity. The fact that the member opposite comes in here
and critiques these people as though somehow they are part of some sort of game
is, quite frankly, absurd and demeaning.
Infrastructure WA assessed
the business case on the basis of the infrastructure. It may come as some
surprise to the member for Vasse that Infrastructure WA should assess
the business case on the basis of the infrastructure, but that is what it does.
We have tabled its report, and just because the member opposite does not like
it, it does not mean that she can come in here or go to the media and criticise
and call into question the integrity of Infrastructure
WA and the director general of Health. These are good people. The member should
leave them out of her political grabs.
because it gives me the opportunity to mention that tomorrow night, the
government is throwing open the gates of HBF Park to allow members of the
public to watch the big game on the big screen and soak up the atmosphere and
celebrate the Matildas. That is, of course, in addition to our fan zone at Forrest Chase, which, of course, has been well
attended throughout the competition. It will be another exciting day for
Western Australia, and I am sure that everyone will be busting a gut and
looking forward to getting down there.
Mr D.A. Templeman : Or they
can come here for the private members' business of the opposition! I know
where I'm going to be.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Sorry. I might
have to caution the Leader of the House for bringing this house into disrepute.
The Premier.
Mr R.H. COOK : Madam Speaker,
I am with the member for Roe; every one of us will be paying attention to the
important issues raised in this place, but we will all have half an eye on the
Matildas game at the same time.
Once again, the member goes to the issue of the
Infrastructure WA review of the business case of the decision to move the women's
and babies' hospital to the Fiona Stanley Hospital site. Of course,
this was something called for by the member for Vasse, along with the member
for Central Wheatbelt. In estimates this year, they insisted that the report be
sent to Infrastructure WA as part of an independent review of the business
case, which is perfectly appropriate. The member for Vasse knows that it is
appropriate, as the Minister for Health outlined, because in her contribution
on 21 March 2019 she was quite effusive about the work of Infrastructure WA as
an independent body to review the government's decisions about
infrastructure. The member said —
� independent advice to government on
the state's infrastructure needs and priorities. Although it is only
right, appropriate and just for a bureaucracy to provide such advice, and there
is much support for this legislation, it is also essential that decisions are
made by government.
We agree with the member for Vasse
that it is important that Infrastructure WA has an opportunity to review these
decisions so that we can have proper oversight and ensure that we can continue
to be confident of the decisions made, test the robustness of these business
cases and make proper decisions in the interests of Western Australia. The
member for Vasse cannot have it both ways. She cannot, on the one hand, support
the legislative process that establishes that
independent review and continue to support that independent process by calling,
very recently, for the business case to be reviewed by Infrastructure WA
and then say, as she did during an interview on 6PR on 11 August, that
Infrastructure WA's independent assessment of the business case was ''political
trickery''. Here we have someone who will do anything and say anything
for a cheap political grab. That reminds me of another decision she made
recently, a very important decision. She is flippity-floppity in making
decisions simply because ''The Clan''
has decided that it does not like her line in relation to something else. She
chases that little opportunity —
Point of Order
Ms L. METTAM : I have a point
of order.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order please,
members! Members, I remind you that points of order are heard in silence. The
Leader of the Liberal Party.
Ms L.
METTAM : Not only are the comments from the Premier wholly incorrect —
The SPEAKER : Sorry; this is
not an opportunity to debate the points that he has made. You have to make a point
of order.
Ms L. METTAM : His comments
are not relevant or factual.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Landsdale! Members, I am not upholding that point of order. The Premier.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr R.H. COOK : I am surprised
that the member is so thin-skinned on this issue because I have not actually
said what the issue is! I have not got there yet, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the
member for Vasse is used to being criticised for saying and doing anything for
the latest cheap political grab in the media. It is a pity that she does this
on such important policy issues about where
we have the new women's and babies' hospital. It is shameless
that the member comes into this place and thinks she can say anything
here and to the media as though no-one remembers what she said yesterday. They
know what they are listening to today and they remember what the member said
yesterday. Member for Vasse, I think they are onto you; we are certainly onto
you.
During
her interview on 6PR radio, she went on to say that IWA had manipulated data to
support its decision. Here we have someone who touted for the
independent body and called for the business case to be referred to the
independent body, and now that she does not like the answer, she calls into
question the absolute integrity of Infrastructure WA by saying that it
manipulated the data—what an outrageous accusation! She said that IWA
had simply ''justified the captain's call''. What a pathetic
analysis. It is symbolic of what the member for Vasse is prepared to do or say
to simply get the grab today. Opposition members will chase the grab tomorrow
and it could be completely different from what they said yesterday. The member
for Vasse also criticised the director general of Health—a director
general whom her side of government actually appointed. It was a Liberal
government appointment. I admit that he is one of the best directors general of
WA Health this state has ever had.
The member for Vasse also said that
the director general of Health is simply saying what they want to hear. What an
appalling accusation to make. The member can attack us; she can say what she
likes about the government, but she should not go attacking public servants who
work with integrity day in, day out delivering on their mandate, particularly
those in Infrastructure WA. This is the same director general of Health who
overcame the challenges when Fiona Stanley Hospital was opened, who dealt with
the previous government's stuff-ups around the Perth Children's
Hospital and who ran Fiona Stanley Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.
He is a man of great integrity. The fact that the member opposite comes in here
and critiques these people as though somehow they are part of some sort of game
is, quite frankly, absurd and demeaning.
Infrastructure WA assessed
the business case on the basis of the infrastructure. It may come as some
surprise to the member for Vasse that Infrastructure WA should assess
the business case on the basis of the infrastructure, but that is what it does.
We have tabled its report, and just because the member opposite does not like
it, it does not mean that she can come in here or go to the media and criticise
and call into question the integrity of Infrastructure
WA and the director general of Health. These are good people. The member should
leave them out of her political grabs.
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.