❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health regarding Serco's failure to provide adequate sterilisation services at Fiona Stanley Hospital, seeking details on fines, costs, and transition plans. The Minister acknowledges the issue and ongoing negotiations with Serco, confirming Serco will cover additional oversight costs.
AnsweredQoN 254Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT —
STERILISATION PROCEDURES
254. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
Before I ask my question, may I just
acknowledge, on behalf of the member for Mandurah, Pastor Aaron Edwards, and
his wife, Bronwyn, and their team from Eastlake Church in Mandurah.
I refer to the critical failure of
sterilisation services provided by Serco at Fiona Stanley Hospital.
(1) What fine
will be levied against Serco for its fundamental failure to perform this crucial
service under the terms of its contract?
(2) What has been
the total cost to taxpayers to date for the Department of Health's
oversight of Serco's inadequate provision of sterilisation services?
(3) What will be the transition
costs for the state government to take over this service from Serco?
(4) What will be
the revised total cost of the Serco contract after the removal from the
contract of sterilisation and other services?
STERILISATION PROCEDURES
254. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
Before I ask my question, may I just
acknowledge, on behalf of the member for Mandurah, Pastor Aaron Edwards, and
his wife, Bronwyn, and their team from Eastlake Church in Mandurah.
I refer to the critical failure of
sterilisation services provided by Serco at Fiona Stanley Hospital.
(1) What fine
will be levied against Serco for its fundamental failure to perform this crucial
service under the terms of its contract?
(2) What has been
the total cost to taxpayers to date for the Department of Health's
oversight of Serco's inadequate provision of sterilisation services?
(3) What will be the transition
costs for the state government to take over this service from Serco?
(4) What will be
the revised total cost of the Serco contract after the removal from the
contract of sterilisation and other services?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) I
cannot answer all those questions, because most of those will be part of a
process of negotiation with Serco. What I can confirm—I think it was
question (2) or (3), in which the member asked what has been the cost to date
for our staff in providing supervision—is that the answer to that is
nil. We have reached agreement with Serco that it will pay for the additional
staff that we will provide. We have now withdrawn that contract. There were
components of the contract that gave us options, and we have followed those
options. The first option was that a breach notice was issued. Serco had an
opportunity to come back with a response and change of action, and, as part of
that, we put in our additional staff, which Serco paid for. We found, still,
that the quality of the service was inadequate, whereas before it was theatre
staff who had found instruments that were contaminated. Those instruments, I
will reiterate, were not used on patients. We then had our staff working in the
sterilisation unit and checking the equipment before it went into the steriliser,
and, again, some material was found. That equipment was obviously withdrawn, as
it had not been sterilised, so it did not get to the theatre. With Serco's
second abatement notice, we required Serco to provide detail about how it would
resolve those difficulties. Professor Bryant Stokes and the theatre staff all
had an opportunity to have input into the adequacy of that response. Yesterday,
it was decided by cabinet that the response, in our view, did not provide the
certainty that we needed to make sure that the sterilisation service was being
run as we expected. Therefore, we made the announcement yesterday that that
service would be partially withdrawn, so Serco will continue with a component
of that part of the contract. In terms of the overall cost, Serco gets a sum,
which I think is paid on a monthly basis, for the total of its services. We now
will negotiate with Serco about what component will be paid. An amount of money
is put aside as part of the contract to pay for that service. A component of that
payment will now come to the Department of Health, and the health department
will pay its staff from that amount. The final details of the negotiations and
what will happen will be undertaken now.
cannot answer all those questions, because most of those will be part of a
process of negotiation with Serco. What I can confirm—I think it was
question (2) or (3), in which the member asked what has been the cost to date
for our staff in providing supervision—is that the answer to that is
nil. We have reached agreement with Serco that it will pay for the additional
staff that we will provide. We have now withdrawn that contract. There were
components of the contract that gave us options, and we have followed those
options. The first option was that a breach notice was issued. Serco had an
opportunity to come back with a response and change of action, and, as part of
that, we put in our additional staff, which Serco paid for. We found, still,
that the quality of the service was inadequate, whereas before it was theatre
staff who had found instruments that were contaminated. Those instruments, I
will reiterate, were not used on patients. We then had our staff working in the
sterilisation unit and checking the equipment before it went into the steriliser,
and, again, some material was found. That equipment was obviously withdrawn, as
it had not been sterilised, so it did not get to the theatre. With Serco's
second abatement notice, we required Serco to provide detail about how it would
resolve those difficulties. Professor Bryant Stokes and the theatre staff all
had an opportunity to have input into the adequacy of that response. Yesterday,
it was decided by cabinet that the response, in our view, did not provide the
certainty that we needed to make sure that the sterilisation service was being
run as we expected. Therefore, we made the announcement yesterday that that
service would be partially withdrawn, so Serco will continue with a component
of that part of the contract. In terms of the overall cost, Serco gets a sum,
which I think is paid on a monthly basis, for the total of its services. We now
will negotiate with Serco about what component will be paid. An amount of money
is put aside as part of the contract to pay for that service. A component of that
payment will now come to the Department of Health, and the health department
will pay its staff from that amount. The final details of the negotiations and
what will happen will be undertaken now.
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.