❓ Mr. Francis questions the Minister for Health regarding PricewaterhouseCoopers' work at Peel Health Campus, following accusations that the government hindered their review. The Minister clarifies the extent of PwC's involvement and the government's future plans for the campus's management.
AnsweredQoN 686Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PEEL
HEALTH CAMPUS — AUDIT
686. Mr J.M. FRANCIS to the Minister for Health:
Earlier this week, the member for Kwinana accused the
government of not reappointing PricewaterhouseCoopers to perform further work
on Peel Health Campus that it had been requested to do. Can the minister please
inform the house what work PricewaterhouseCoopers has actually done for the
Department of Health at the Peel Health Campus site?
HEALTH CAMPUS — AUDIT
686. Mr J.M. FRANCIS to the Minister for Health:
Earlier this week, the member for Kwinana accused the
government of not reappointing PricewaterhouseCoopers to perform further work
on Peel Health Campus that it had been requested to do. Can the minister please
inform the house what work PricewaterhouseCoopers has actually done for the
Department of Health at the Peel Health Campus site?
AnswerView source ↗
Indeed, and I thank the member for the question. Last week,
the member for Kwinana did ask me a question relating to the
PricewaterhouseCoopers review, suggesting in some way that I had refused
PricewaterhouseCoopers the option of being able to continue with its review of Peel
Health Campus. I have to say that I was somewhat horrified by his comments. I
thought: surely not. Surely that was not what I did. Surely if
PricewaterhouseCoopers had asked to be able to do further reports, I would have
acceded to that. Why would I stop PricewaterhouseCoopers from doing a full
examination of Peel Health Campus?
Well, guess what, members? I did not. Not only did I not stop
PricewaterhouseCoopers from doing further reviews, I understand now why I would
not have needed to do that. PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed by this
government in June 2011, when I asked questions about the issue of charging
those patients, to do a full and thorough review. We appointed
PricewaterhouseCoopers again in March 2012 to continue with the sample size that
it had tested and test further those patients who were being audited. Following
the comprehensive audit of those patients, the final assessment was provided
again to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its review. Peel Health Campus challenged
some of those that it said were not appropriate—in fact, it was
successful in its challenge for the large majority of those—and we gave
it back to PricewaterhouseCoopers to again review those challenges that were
put forward by the hospital. And, guess what, members? PricewaterhouseCoopers
is this week doing yet another review of Peel Health Campus. We had an annual
review. We are in fact changing that review to six monthly, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers has again started to do that review.
There have been issues about Peel Health Campus, as we all
know, and a review is being undertaken. It has been strongly suggested by the
opposition that this government plans to roll over, if you like, and accept the
proposal that has been put forward by Health Solutions WA to renew its contract
and to extend its time period and agree to further conditions. The contract
does contain requirements. The contract goes to 2017. It requires that by 2014,
this government will enter into negotiations for a future extension of that
contract, and deal in good faith. Can I say that last week I went through the
options that may unfold as a result of that, including purchases by other
private providers, or, indeed, other providers being given the opportunity to
put forward what they would do. I want to make it very clear that this
government regards bargaining in good faith to include seeking out other
expressions of interest from other private companies that are able to provide
those services. So can I make it very clear to this house that the government
will look for expressions of interest from other companies before making any
decision on the Peel Health Campus proposal and will make sure that other
companies are given an opportunity to put forward alternative bids for the
management of that hospital.
the member for Kwinana did ask me a question relating to the
PricewaterhouseCoopers review, suggesting in some way that I had refused
PricewaterhouseCoopers the option of being able to continue with its review of Peel
Health Campus. I have to say that I was somewhat horrified by his comments. I
thought: surely not. Surely that was not what I did. Surely if
PricewaterhouseCoopers had asked to be able to do further reports, I would have
acceded to that. Why would I stop PricewaterhouseCoopers from doing a full
examination of Peel Health Campus?
Well, guess what, members? I did not. Not only did I not stop
PricewaterhouseCoopers from doing further reviews, I understand now why I would
not have needed to do that. PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed by this
government in June 2011, when I asked questions about the issue of charging
those patients, to do a full and thorough review. We appointed
PricewaterhouseCoopers again in March 2012 to continue with the sample size that
it had tested and test further those patients who were being audited. Following
the comprehensive audit of those patients, the final assessment was provided
again to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its review. Peel Health Campus challenged
some of those that it said were not appropriate—in fact, it was
successful in its challenge for the large majority of those—and we gave
it back to PricewaterhouseCoopers to again review those challenges that were
put forward by the hospital. And, guess what, members? PricewaterhouseCoopers
is this week doing yet another review of Peel Health Campus. We had an annual
review. We are in fact changing that review to six monthly, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers has again started to do that review.
There have been issues about Peel Health Campus, as we all
know, and a review is being undertaken. It has been strongly suggested by the
opposition that this government plans to roll over, if you like, and accept the
proposal that has been put forward by Health Solutions WA to renew its contract
and to extend its time period and agree to further conditions. The contract
does contain requirements. The contract goes to 2017. It requires that by 2014,
this government will enter into negotiations for a future extension of that
contract, and deal in good faith. Can I say that last week I went through the
options that may unfold as a result of that, including purchases by other
private providers, or, indeed, other providers being given the opportunity to
put forward what they would do. I want to make it very clear that this
government regards bargaining in good faith to include seeking out other
expressions of interest from other private companies that are able to provide
those services. So can I make it very clear to this house that the government
will look for expressions of interest from other companies before making any
decision on the Peel Health Campus proposal and will make sure that other
companies are given an opportunity to put forward alternative bids for the
management of 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.