❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health regarding the privatization of services at Fiona Stanley Hospital, specifically the additional cost of fittings and the monitoring of the Serco contract. The Minister's response is evasive, referencing a previous statement and deferring to a review process.
AnsweredQoN 351Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
COMMITTEE REPORT — FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT
351. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Public Accounts Committee report tabled today
that shows that cabinet made a decision to privatise hospital services at Fiona
Stanley Hospital just two weeks after the report from Paxon was delivered.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Thank you, members!
Mr
R.H. COOK : I ask —
(1) Why was the
purchase of fittings, furnishings and equipment at Fiona Stanley Hospital
passed to Serco at an additional cost of $170 million?
(2) Given
that we now know that the key performance indicators and failure points were watered
down during the negotiation of the facilities management contract for Fiona
Stanley Hospital, will the minister commit the extra resources required to
fully and effectively monitor the Serco contract to ensure the services are
delivered to the expected standards?
COMMITTEE REPORT — FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT
351. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Public Accounts Committee report tabled today
that shows that cabinet made a decision to privatise hospital services at Fiona
Stanley Hospital just two weeks after the report from Paxon was delivered.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Thank you, members!
Mr
R.H. COOK : I ask —
(1) Why was the
purchase of fittings, furnishings and equipment at Fiona Stanley Hospital
passed to Serco at an additional cost of $170 million?
(2) Given
that we now know that the key performance indicators and failure points were watered
down during the negotiation of the facilities management contract for Fiona
Stanley Hospital, will the minister commit the extra resources required to
fully and effectively monitor the Serco contract to ensure the services are
delivered to the expected standards?
AnswerView source ↗
Mr Speaker —
Mr B.J. Grylls :
Where did you get that report?
Mr T.R. Buswell :
Remarkable detail.
Dr K.D. HAMES :
Yes; that is remarkable detail, given the report was only tabled this morning.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
seem to recall the statement made by the member for Balcatta. I am sure the
member for Balcatta will correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure he said
that $174 million, when other factors are added in—I cannot recall the
other factors the member for Balcatta referred to—resulted in a gain by
the state government of something in the order of $10 million; rather than a
$170 million loss, there is a gain of $10 million. I thought that is what the
member for Balcatta said. Nevertheless, we will see that —
Mr J.C. Kobelke :
Would you take an interjection?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No,
not really, because as I said to the member for Kwinana, I am not certain of
the facts. Whatever the case, my previous answer to the previous question
remains. There is a process to go through. This will go to the Department of
Health and Treasury, and the government departments will report back to this
house. But my understanding from the member for Balcatta was that there is
actually a saving to government, not a loss.
Mr B.J. Grylls :
Where did you get that report?
Mr T.R. Buswell :
Remarkable detail.
Dr K.D. HAMES :
Yes; that is remarkable detail, given the report was only tabled this morning.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
seem to recall the statement made by the member for Balcatta. I am sure the
member for Balcatta will correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure he said
that $174 million, when other factors are added in—I cannot recall the
other factors the member for Balcatta referred to—resulted in a gain by
the state government of something in the order of $10 million; rather than a
$170 million loss, there is a gain of $10 million. I thought that is what the
member for Balcatta said. Nevertheless, we will see that —
Mr J.C. Kobelke :
Would you take an interjection?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No,
not really, because as I said to the member for Kwinana, I am not certain of
the facts. Whatever the case, my previous answer to the previous question
remains. There is a process to go through. This will go to the Department of
Health and Treasury, and the government departments will report back to this
house. But my understanding from the member for Balcatta was that there is
actually a saving to government, not a loss.
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.