A WA parliamentary question regarding the Fiona Stanley Hospital Serco contract seeks transparency on financial savings and risk analysis. The Minister declines to table documents citing commercial sensitivity but agrees to notify Parliament and the Auditor General.

AnsweredQoN 590Legislative Council
Asked
16 August 2011
Portfolio
Health

QuestionView source ↗

FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT
I refer to the privatisation of services at Fiona Stanley Hospital and the confirmed contract with Serco. (1) Will the minister table the public–private comparator and other documents that support the proposed $500 million worth of savings; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister table the risk analysis report that would have been completed to support the contract process; and, if not, why not? (3) If no to (1) and (2), will the minister give written notice to both houses of Parliament and to the Auditor General, as required by section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006? Hon HELEN MORTON

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
(1) Will the minister table the public–private comparator and other documents that support the proposed $500 million worth of savings; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister table the risk analysis report that would have been completed to support the contract process; and, if not, why not? (3) If no to (1) and (2), will the minister give written notice to both houses of Parliament and to the Auditor General, as required by section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
(2) Will the minister table the risk analysis report that would have been completed to support the contract process; and, if not, why not? (3) If no to (1) and (2), will the minister give written notice to both houses of Parliament and to the Auditor General, as required by section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
(3) If no to (1) and (2), will the minister give written notice to both houses of Parliament and to the Auditor General, as required by section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
(1)–(2) No. This information contains commercially sensitive information that would place the state at a disadvantage and adversely affect the state’s interests in any future contract discussions. (3) Yes.
(3) Yes.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more