❓ Mr Cook questions the Health Minister about an investigation into leaked morbidity and mortality rates from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, specifically regarding a freedom of information request and potential whistleblowing. The Minister's response is somewhat evasive and focuses on patient confidentiality and internal disputes.
AnsweredQoN 896Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL — MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY RATES — LEAKED DOCUMENTS
I refer to the failure by Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital to release the morbidity and mortality rates for its cardiothoracic unit in response to a freedom of information application made by Channel Nine, and the subsequent leaking of this material to Channel Nine. (1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has launched an investigation into the leaking of these documents? (2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES
I refer to the failure by Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital to release the morbidity and mortality rates for its cardiothoracic unit in response to a freedom of information application made by Channel Nine, and the subsequent leaking of this material to Channel Nine. (1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has launched an investigation into the leaking of these documents? (2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has launched an investigation into the leaking of these documents? (2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has launched an investigation into the leaking of these documents? (2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(2) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Health has advised the Corruption and Crime Commission of this investigation? (3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(3) Who authorised the investigation? (4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(4) Does the minister approve of his department using valuable resources to search for whistleblowers who attempted to expose a serious failing of the hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
(1)-(4) I know of some details, having seen a copy of the question that was sent out by Dixie Marshall last week; the member has obviously used a copy of the question she sent out to a large number of members. I have discussed the matter with staff within the hospital system. My understanding about the freedom of information application is that the details that were subsequently leaked were not related to the information that was requested, and that the leak in fact contained a lot of private information that could not have been released anyway, particularly details including patient names and circumstances. We need to understand that I am the first health minister in this state to get all the cardiothoracic surgeons to actually agree on anything, which is that they hate me! It has taken a bit of work on my part to get to that stage. The former minister had similar difficulties trying to work out what should happen with cardiothoracic surgery in this state. They all agreed that I had got it wrong. However, there have been significant disputes between cardiothoracic surgeons in Western Australia. Members may be aware that at least one of the surgeons is suing one of the others. There were also considerable disputes between some of the cardiothoracic surgeons at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and another surgeon, who subsequently left and went to another state. A committee was involved in the discussion of those figures. I forget the name of the doctor, but one of the doctors ended up doing leading cardiothoracic surgery in another state, and this leak related to specific information about his performance and his patients. Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr R.H. Cook : This is more about the FOI application. Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I am just saying that the information that was leaked came from a committee review of information about that particular doctor and the work that he was doing. Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If these documents existed, why couldn’t the FOI people find them? Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : That is what I am explaining. The documents related not only to the doctors, but also to specific incidents involving specific patients. Under FOI rules, those things are not meant to be made publicly available anyway. I asked the department what was happening and whether it was true that this investigation had been referred to the CCC, and I got two responses. One was that the department had requested that there be a degree of investigation because what had been leaked was totally inappropriate; there were no details about whistleblowing. Members should remember, when they talk about whistleblowing, that this was one doctor’s views on what another doctor was doing. However, patients’ names were involved, and it is totally inappropriate to leak patient details. If the names had been scrubbed out, it would have been a different matter, but it was totally inappropriate to release those names. I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
I said to the person from the hospital with whom I discussed these matters that, following any suggestion of some CCC review and detailed investigation, and particularly as Dixie Marshall was very unhappy with what was being done, the person was on a hiding to nothing and that it was not worth the person following the matter up to the extent that has been suggested today by the member for Kwinana. If it is an issue to do with patient confidentiality and details, it would be reasonable to undertake some sort of review, but I do not think that a major review or a detailed witch-hunt is necessary. My suggestion was that the person should do the necessary job, but not make a big deal out of it. Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr R.H. Cook : Has it been to the CCC? Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I do not know whether it has been to the CCC. When did Dixie send that thing out? Last week? The member must have received it; it was copied to him just as it was copied to me. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : Sorry; the Premier is right. I am not to know, in effect, whether it has gone to the CCC or not. I had forgotten that that was the case with anything referred to the CCC. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You’d forgotten what you’re not supposed to know! Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
Dr K.D. HAMES : The reality is I do not know whether it has, which is good, because I am not supposed to know whether it has! That settles the question! The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
The SPEAKER : I know nothing!
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.