❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health about a reported crisis meeting at Fiona Stanley Hospital and the Premier's characterization of concerned clinicians. The Minister denies a 'crisis' and defends the consultation process.
AnsweredQoN 4Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — CLINICIANS'
COMMENTS — CRISIS MEETING
4. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
I refer to reports that a crisis
meeting will be held this week to address the legitimate concerns of senior
clinicians at Fiona Stanley Hospital, as outlined in their open letter.
(1) Does the need
for this crisis meeting involving all 47 heads of service at the hospital not
prove that those senior clinicians were correct?
(2) Does the
minister agree with the Premier that these doctors are simply grizzlers and
whingers?
COMMENTS — CRISIS MEETING
4. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
I refer to reports that a crisis
meeting will be held this week to address the legitimate concerns of senior
clinicians at Fiona Stanley Hospital, as outlined in their open letter.
(1) Does the need
for this crisis meeting involving all 47 heads of service at the hospital not
prove that those senior clinicians were correct?
(2) Does the
minister agree with the Premier that these doctors are simply grizzlers and
whingers?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
thank the member for the question. Everyone is laughing about my trip back!
Life is like a pendulum. I started at the back, I swung to the front, and now I
am on my way back, and what you hope is that there are not too many jerks along
the way that stop your swing!
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Dr
K.D. HAMES : The meeting that is on this week is not a crisis meeting; it is
a meeting that I requested the director general to arrange—because I
have been concerned about the small group of clinicians who wrote that letter—to
make sure that everybody's concerns are heard and that there is an opportunity
for open and frank debate about the issues they believe are at the hospital.
Let us look at the main two issues that those clinicians raised, remembering
that we have clinicians who are acting heads of department; the DG is an
ex-clinician and the head of the South Metropolitan Health Service is an
ex-clinician, and they are negotiating and talking with ex-clinicians all the
time. I will tell you the difference. A senior clinician, who had similar
points of view regarding the East Metropolitan Health Service and Royal Perth
Hospital, wrote to me, along with a group of senior clinicians, wanting to talk
about it. I arranged a meeting. We discussed it in my office and reached an
amicable agreement on the way forward. That is how you should behave; under the
Public Sector Management Act, that is what should happen. These clinicians
released an anonymous report to The
Sunday Times , and look at the two key issues that they raised and see who
backs them. One was the retention of Royal Perth Hospital; they said we should
not have retained Royal Perth Hospital. Not only do all the clinicians at Royal
Perth Hospital support the retention of Royal Perth Hospital, but also the
opposition does, or so it claims. The opposition claims that despite wanting to
close it as a tertiary hospital during the term of the previous government, it
has now reached the view that it should be retained, so that clearly
contradicts one aspect of its presentation.
The other is that there should not
be an East Metropolitan Health Service. The clinicians who disagree with that
again include not only the Royal Perth Hospital clinicians, but also the
Australian Medical Association, which represents all those clinicians and is
often involved with them. It totally disagrees because it was the architect of
the idea in the first place. Two key issues that they raised as concerns that I
should listen to are strongly disagreed with by other clinicians. They have an
opportunity to present their complaints directly to the DG, who will sit down in
a group forum with all the other clinicians—many of whom, I am sure,
will disagree with their points of view—and argue it out.
thank the member for the question. Everyone is laughing about my trip back!
Life is like a pendulum. I started at the back, I swung to the front, and now I
am on my way back, and what you hope is that there are not too many jerks along
the way that stop your swing!
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Dr
K.D. HAMES : The meeting that is on this week is not a crisis meeting; it is
a meeting that I requested the director general to arrange—because I
have been concerned about the small group of clinicians who wrote that letter—to
make sure that everybody's concerns are heard and that there is an opportunity
for open and frank debate about the issues they believe are at the hospital.
Let us look at the main two issues that those clinicians raised, remembering
that we have clinicians who are acting heads of department; the DG is an
ex-clinician and the head of the South Metropolitan Health Service is an
ex-clinician, and they are negotiating and talking with ex-clinicians all the
time. I will tell you the difference. A senior clinician, who had similar
points of view regarding the East Metropolitan Health Service and Royal Perth
Hospital, wrote to me, along with a group of senior clinicians, wanting to talk
about it. I arranged a meeting. We discussed it in my office and reached an
amicable agreement on the way forward. That is how you should behave; under the
Public Sector Management Act, that is what should happen. These clinicians
released an anonymous report to The
Sunday Times , and look at the two key issues that they raised and see who
backs them. One was the retention of Royal Perth Hospital; they said we should
not have retained Royal Perth Hospital. Not only do all the clinicians at Royal
Perth Hospital support the retention of Royal Perth Hospital, but also the
opposition does, or so it claims. The opposition claims that despite wanting to
close it as a tertiary hospital during the term of the previous government, it
has now reached the view that it should be retained, so that clearly
contradicts one aspect of its presentation.
The other is that there should not
be an East Metropolitan Health Service. The clinicians who disagree with that
again include not only the Royal Perth Hospital clinicians, but also the
Australian Medical Association, which represents all those clinicians and is
often involved with them. It totally disagrees because it was the architect of
the idea in the first place. Two key issues that they raised as concerns that I
should listen to are strongly disagreed with by other clinicians. They have an
opportunity to present their complaints directly to the DG, who will sit down in
a group forum with all the other clinicians—many of whom, I am sure,
will disagree with their points of view—and argue it out.
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.