❓ Opposition questions the Premier's decision to relocate the Women's and Babies' Hospital to Murdoch, citing concerns about isolation from paediatric facilities. The Premier defends the decision, blaming previous government actions and site constraints.
AnsweredQoN 674Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S AND BABIES' HOSPITAL —
RELOCATION
674. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the latest comments from
the president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Page, regarding
this government's reckless decision to relocate the new women's
and babies' hospital to Murdoch. He stated that a tertiary maternity
hospital that sits in isolation from paediatric tertiary facilities is not
world-class and will have worse outcomes for the state's sickest
neonates and adults compared with other jurisdictions. How can the Premier
continue to justify such a decision that short-changes WA against the world's
best clinical practice?
RELOCATION
674. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the latest comments from
the president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Page, regarding
this government's reckless decision to relocate the new women's
and babies' hospital to Murdoch. He stated that a tertiary maternity
hospital that sits in isolation from paediatric tertiary facilities is not
world-class and will have worse outcomes for the state's sickest
neonates and adults compared with other jurisdictions. How can the Premier
continue to justify such a decision that short-changes WA against the world's
best clinical practice?
AnswerView source ↗
I acknowledge all the clinicians who
have an input into this decision and the process led by the director general of
Health, Dr David Russell-Weisz. It is a process of clinical engagement to
understand the levels and nature of the concerns
that people have as a result of making this difficult but important decision.
The irrefutable evidence shows that it would be irresponsible to proceed
with the building of the new $1.8 billion women's and babies'
hospital at the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital site. As someone who learnt a lot
of my ideas from health around the Reid report, I understand the initial vision
that was put into that. Part of that vision was that we should develop the
women's and babies' hospital on the QEII Medical Centre site
and then see about the opportunities to develop a paediatric hospital and move
Princess Margaret Hospital for Children to that site as well.
The previous government made a decision
to go for the political play, which was to move the children's hospital in the first instance, contrary to the
initial vision of the Reid review. I do not know about the wisdom of that
decision , but there was an absolute
consequence of that decision; that is, it is simply too constrained and too
difficult to develop the women's and babies' hospital on
that site in a time line that is respectful of the Western Australian public.
The business case showed that if we were to
develop it on that site, it would take 10 to 20 years because it is so
constrained and complex. To add to that complexity is the decision by
the previous Liberal–National government to privatise the parking
arrangements at that site. Every time we turn off a car park, we have to
compensate the company associated with that
contract. Let us say we wanted to build the hospital on one of the sites on
which there is currently a car park. Every day that car park is no
longer a car park, we pay for the privilege of using that site.
Ms R. Saffioti : And they get
the automatic rights to any car park.
Mr
R.H. COOK : That is right. Let us
assume that we stepped further down the road and built more car parks there to accommodate the new hospital, we then have to provide the contract for those
car parks to the same company so it can continue to collect money on the back
of it.
We share everyone's
frustration—the clinicians, the administrators, the leadership of the
Department of Health—as a result of these circumstances. The
opportunity now is to make a deliberate decision that will bring the women's
and babies' hospital forward significantly. It will be delivered years
earlier, stopping 10 to 20 years of unacceptable patient and staff disruption.
It is more cost effective. The Charlies site is more than $228 million
over-budget. It will provide a significant
boost to the facilities at Osborne Park Hospital—it is a great
opportunity for that hospital — and
will continue to build neonatal cots at Perth Children's Hospital. The
proximity to Jandakot Airport means that regional residents requiring
emergency services will be able to get acute levels of care much quicker
because they will be able to access those services at the Fiona Stanley
Hospital site.
The government continues to consult
with clinicians about what services for women and their babies will look like
in the future. However, no amount of consultation would have changed the
responsible decision that had to be made to move it to a site at which we can
develop the hospital in much faster stead and at which we can provide a better
level of service. Of course, do not forget that Fiona Stanley Hospital is
already a site that delivers over 3 500 babies each year. There is a significant
level of activity there that needs support as well.
If we had our druthers, would we
have moved the women's and babies' hospital to the QEII site
before we did the children's hospital? Maybe—and maybe we would
be having a different debate today. But they are not the cards we have been dealt. We have a hospital that is
highly constrained and that already has a children's hospital on the
site that was once anticipated for
the new women's and babies' hospital, and we have a contract
that sits like an albatross around our neck that basically handcuffs us
financially in relation to whatever we want to do at QEII hospital. I do not
get a great deal of satisfaction out of it. I enjoy criticising members
opposite for it. Unfortunately, that is of little consequence. We have to get
on and make sure that women's and babies' hospital services are
improved as a matter of priority. The only way we can get this happening as a matter
of pace is to move it to the Fiona Stanley Hospital site. I commend the
leadership of the Department of Health, which is working concertedly with
clinicians to understand how we can continue to make sure that decision is a success.
have an input into this decision and the process led by the director general of
Health, Dr David Russell-Weisz. It is a process of clinical engagement to
understand the levels and nature of the concerns
that people have as a result of making this difficult but important decision.
The irrefutable evidence shows that it would be irresponsible to proceed
with the building of the new $1.8 billion women's and babies'
hospital at the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital site. As someone who learnt a lot
of my ideas from health around the Reid report, I understand the initial vision
that was put into that. Part of that vision was that we should develop the
women's and babies' hospital on the QEII Medical Centre site
and then see about the opportunities to develop a paediatric hospital and move
Princess Margaret Hospital for Children to that site as well.
The previous government made a decision
to go for the political play, which was to move the children's hospital in the first instance, contrary to the
initial vision of the Reid review. I do not know about the wisdom of that
decision , but there was an absolute
consequence of that decision; that is, it is simply too constrained and too
difficult to develop the women's and babies' hospital on
that site in a time line that is respectful of the Western Australian public.
The business case showed that if we were to
develop it on that site, it would take 10 to 20 years because it is so
constrained and complex. To add to that complexity is the decision by
the previous Liberal–National government to privatise the parking
arrangements at that site. Every time we turn off a car park, we have to
compensate the company associated with that
contract. Let us say we wanted to build the hospital on one of the sites on
which there is currently a car park. Every day that car park is no
longer a car park, we pay for the privilege of using that site.
Ms R. Saffioti : And they get
the automatic rights to any car park.
Mr
R.H. COOK : That is right. Let us
assume that we stepped further down the road and built more car parks there to accommodate the new hospital, we then have to provide the contract for those
car parks to the same company so it can continue to collect money on the back
of it.
We share everyone's
frustration—the clinicians, the administrators, the leadership of the
Department of Health—as a result of these circumstances. The
opportunity now is to make a deliberate decision that will bring the women's
and babies' hospital forward significantly. It will be delivered years
earlier, stopping 10 to 20 years of unacceptable patient and staff disruption.
It is more cost effective. The Charlies site is more than $228 million
over-budget. It will provide a significant
boost to the facilities at Osborne Park Hospital—it is a great
opportunity for that hospital — and
will continue to build neonatal cots at Perth Children's Hospital. The
proximity to Jandakot Airport means that regional residents requiring
emergency services will be able to get acute levels of care much quicker
because they will be able to access those services at the Fiona Stanley
Hospital site.
The government continues to consult
with clinicians about what services for women and their babies will look like
in the future. However, no amount of consultation would have changed the
responsible decision that had to be made to move it to a site at which we can
develop the hospital in much faster stead and at which we can provide a better
level of service. Of course, do not forget that Fiona Stanley Hospital is
already a site that delivers over 3 500 babies each year. There is a significant
level of activity there that needs support as well.
If we had our druthers, would we
have moved the women's and babies' hospital to the QEII site
before we did the children's hospital? Maybe—and maybe we would
be having a different debate today. But they are not the cards we have been dealt. We have a hospital that is
highly constrained and that already has a children's hospital on the
site that was once anticipated for
the new women's and babies' hospital, and we have a contract
that sits like an albatross around our neck that basically handcuffs us
financially in relation to whatever we want to do at QEII hospital. I do not
get a great deal of satisfaction out of it. I enjoy criticising members
opposite for it. Unfortunately, that is of little consequence. We have to get
on and make sure that women's and babies' hospital services are
improved as a matter of priority. The only way we can get this happening as a matter
of pace is to move it to the Fiona Stanley Hospital site. I commend the
leadership of the Department of Health, which is working concertedly with
clinicians to understand how we can continue to make sure that decision is a success.
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.