❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health about why an audit of Peel Health Campus was not extended, given concerns raised by PricewaterhouseCoopers regarding financial impropriety and mismanagement. The Minister responds by questioning if Mr. Cook has read the transcripts of the upper house inquiry and suggests the committee should continue its investigation.
AnsweredQoN 668Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PEEL
HEALTH CAMPUS — AUDIT
668. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the audit of the Peel Health Campus admissions and
revelations last week that PricewaterhouseCoopers raised significant concerns
about financial propriety, poor accounting practices and missing invoices.
Given that the PWC report found that of a sample of 500 admissions over
one-third were shown to be invalid, given that PWC allegedly raised concerns
about more widespread mismanagement of the hospital and given that PWC was
unable to reconcile $1.5 million in funding given to the hospital for elective
surgery because of poor governance of surgeon waitlists and no centralised
waitlist system, why did the minister decide not to extend that audit?
HEALTH CAMPUS — AUDIT
668. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the audit of the Peel Health Campus admissions and
revelations last week that PricewaterhouseCoopers raised significant concerns
about financial propriety, poor accounting practices and missing invoices.
Given that the PWC report found that of a sample of 500 admissions over
one-third were shown to be invalid, given that PWC allegedly raised concerns
about more widespread mismanagement of the hospital and given that PWC was
unable to reconcile $1.5 million in funding given to the hospital for elective
surgery because of poor governance of surgeon waitlists and no centralised
waitlist system, why did the minister decide not to extend that audit?
AnswerView source ↗
Can I ask the member: has he read the transcripts of the
upper house inquiry?
Mr R.H. Cook : My
word.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
find it hard to believe that he would read those transcripts and then still ask
a question such as this. It can be seen quite clearly from the report that has
been undertaken by the upper house, (a), the explanations that came from the
person making complaints against the hospital and, (b), the response by the
doctor involved in the management. My expectation—in fact, my wish—is
that the committee will continue to bring people before that committee,
certainly the doctors who are alleged to have over-admitted patients within
that emergency department as they come through. Secondly, I hope the committee
will get PricewaterhouseCoopers to talk through those issues it raises. What
the member would have seen is the concern I expressed in the meetings that were
attended by the person who made the complaints to the papers, in effect, and to
that committee, and the concern I expressed about those billing practices.
There was a lot of explanation as to how those billing practices occurred and
why they occurred. I think those explanations are very good. If the member has
read it, I do not need to go through it again because those explanations are
there. There is a clear explanation of why the admissions occurred. I think it
is better for this house to leave the committee to do its job, do its
investigation and let this Parliament know what the situation is in that
hospital.
upper house inquiry?
Mr R.H. Cook : My
word.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
find it hard to believe that he would read those transcripts and then still ask
a question such as this. It can be seen quite clearly from the report that has
been undertaken by the upper house, (a), the explanations that came from the
person making complaints against the hospital and, (b), the response by the
doctor involved in the management. My expectation—in fact, my wish—is
that the committee will continue to bring people before that committee,
certainly the doctors who are alleged to have over-admitted patients within
that emergency department as they come through. Secondly, I hope the committee
will get PricewaterhouseCoopers to talk through those issues it raises. What
the member would have seen is the concern I expressed in the meetings that were
attended by the person who made the complaints to the papers, in effect, and to
that committee, and the concern I expressed about those billing practices.
There was a lot of explanation as to how those billing practices occurred and
why they occurred. I think those explanations are very good. If the member has
read it, I do not need to go through it again because those explanations are
there. There is a clear explanation of why the admissions occurred. I think it
is better for this house to leave the committee to do its job, do its
investigation and let this Parliament know what the situation is in that
hospital.
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.