Hansard

Matters of public interest

Perth Children's Hospital—Contaminated water

Matter of public interest

The Speaker informed the Assembly that he was in receipt within the prescribed time of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate a matter of public interest.

(In compliance with standing orders, at least five members rose in their places.)

Mr Basil Zempilas (Churchlands—Leader of the Opposition) (2:54 pm): I move:

That this house calls on the Minister for Health to explain in full and with complete transparency all issues related to lead exceedences at Perth Children's Hospital.

The opposition is raising this issue as a matter of public interest because the government's lack of transparency and accountability to staff, patients and the public about lead uncovered in drinking water at Perth Children's Hospital is highly concerning. For the public to have full confidence in the state of our hospitals, particularly Perth Children's Hospital, the Minister for Health must be fully transparent in her answers today.

In seeking this full transparency, the opposition has taken what some might consider to be the unusual step of providing the Minister for Health's office some assistance, you might describe it as, with the questions we are about to ask. At the same time as we gave notice of this matter of public interest, that is, earlier this morning, we provided all the questions that are going to be raised. Western Australians deserve to have full confidence in our hospitals and the health system. For this, they need transparency, honesty and the government to take these issues seriously.

I and members on this side have repeatedly heard the government say that it is transparent, honest and accountable. Here is an opportunity for the Minister for Health and the government to demonstrate that they are indeed all of those things—transparent, honest and accountable—by answering the questions that we provided ahead of time directly to her office so that she would have the information that she needs.

I do not think I need to tell people in Western Australia that Perth Children's Hospital is the state's specialist paediatric hospital. It opened in 2018 and each year, hundreds of thousands of patients access PCH's emergency department, admissions and outpatient services. It is a very busy hospital touching the lives of hundreds of thousands of Western Australian families. Almost without exception, everybody who goes in talks about the high level of care and the incredible quality of the staff who see those patients—our young Western Australians.

That is one of the reasons why honesty and transparency on any issues that bring into question the quality of any facet of health delivery at Perth Children's Hospital, or for that matter any hospital in WA, deserves full scrutiny and accountability. Staff, patients, parents and, indeed, families of those patients at Perth Children's Hospital need to know that they have everything in front of them. They deserve to have full confidence in our health service. When there are questions, they deserve full disclosure and detailed explanation. Again, all the questions that are going to be asked have been provided ahead of time. There can be no excuses or reasons why these questions cannot be answered on behalf of the staff, patients and parents of the patients who attend Perth Children's Hospital.

That is why it is right to question the government today in this place on what it has known about the accelerated lead levels in drinking water at PCH since 2023, before they were exposed in the media and discussed in this place. We know in this place that high lead levels in the drinking water were an issue prior to Perth Children's Hospital opening. The government of the day was open about the issues. This was when it was a hospital with no patients. It was a building site. It had not opened. This is in stark contrast to what we have recently seen in relation to a hospital with the most vulnerable of patients, that is, children—young Western Australians.

Back in 2016, the now Premier was the spokesperson for health. He called it a substance that strikes "fear into people's hearts." That is what he said about lead. Let us balance that out with what he said in late November 2017, when the newly elected Labor government was charging towards the official opening of the hospital. He was very up-front with the results of water sampling and analysis. The former Minister for Health, who was previously the shadow spokesperson for health, said that lead is a substance that strikes "fear into people's hearts." Then some year or so on, he described the results as promising, offering the testing results from just three weeks earlier at 33 locations within the hospital. Then, again, in March 2018, just four months later, the then Minister for Health declared "Perth Children's Hospital water gets the all clear". That is what he said: "Perth Children's Hospital water gets the all clear". The government willingly announced that 304 water samples had been taken at randomly selected locations across the hospital. So, it was full disclosure that suited his purposes at the time.

Let us fast-forward, shall we, to just 11 days ago, when there was no conversation in our community about lead in the water at Perth Children's Hospital, until such time as the front page of The West Australian carried the headline "Revealed: Lead back in the water: Shock as children's hospital still dealing with contamination crisis flowing from the taps". That was on Friday 5 September. Through the media, PCH frontline workers and other staff and PCH patients and their families learnt that 11 lead exceedences had been discovered between January 2023 and April 2025—results that were not disclosed by this government, the Premier, the health minister, the health infrastructure minister or any of the other health ministers. They were not disclosed by this government; it was exposed on the front page of the daily newspaper. That is very different behaviour from that seen seven and a half years earlier. Remember this comment: lead should strike fear into the hearts of every Western Australian.

The Premier had the opportunity to speak on the Friday. On Friday 5 September, he said:

These issues have got life in the media today in 2025 but there's been no exceedance of any lead levels at PCH since April 2024, so this is well and truly in the rear view mirror …

So said the Premier only a short period ago—on Friday 5 September. Four days later in this place, the health minister revealed a further five lead exceedences had been discovered after April 2024 in samples taken on 5 August and 5 September—the very day that the Premier said that it was in the rear-view mirror—and later blamed her own department for not being told. That is all very well, but the minister was told on Friday afternoon. Why is it that it took four days for her to say anything about it to anyone and chose this place to do it? She did not do it on Friday afternoon when she learnt about it, or on Saturday, Sunday or Monday, but on Tuesday—four days later.

Let us refresh our memories. In total, 16 higher than national safety levels of lead in the drinking water at Perth Children's Hospital were found between January 2023 and 5 September this year. Remember, the Premier said that it should strike fear into the hearts of every Western Australian. On 5 September, one of the very days when some of those exceedences were recorded, he said that this issue was in the rear-view mirror. Details of the sample dates, locations and levels, revealed after opposition questioning in the other place last week, included one instance of 3.8 times the maximum allowable level in the recent testing in August and five times the maximum allowable level in testing in April 2024. I note that under more stringent guidelines applicable from June this year, that would have been more than 10 times the maximum allowable level in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. I remind all in this place that the government chose not to tell staff. It did not tell staff. It did not tell patients. It did not tell their families. It did not tell anyone at the time of the 11 exceedences between January 2023 and April 2024. The Premier said 10 days ago that it was not appropriate to necessarily make a public declaration.

I note again that earlier today the minister was given all 22 questions that I am about to pose, so there can be no excuse for not answering them. Plenty of notice has been given. Minister, on what dates was the government told about each of the 11 exceedences between January 2023 and April 2024? Whose decision was it, and on what basis was it decided, to keep this information secret from the public, PCH staff and PCH patients and their parents? What was the exact notification policy for parents, carers, staff and contractors when an exceedence was detected during that time?

Four days later in this place, the minister revealed that a further five elevated lead levels were discovered at two PCH sites, later blaming, as I said, her own department for not informing her earlier. She was told on Friday, but she did not tell us on Friday afternoon when she was told, or on Saturday, Sunday or Monday. She waited until Tuesday to tell us in this place. I ask: Given the already heightened and clear public concerns from the revelation of 11 exceedences, why did it take four days for the minister to publicly reveal these additional five exceedences after being notified of them on Friday 5 September? Whose decision was it to keep this information secret until revealed in this place? Did the minister ask the Chief Health Officer on what basis or by what measure he advised her that there was no risk to the safety of patients or staff as a result of these exceedences? What information did the Premier receive that led him to claim that these five results were not in patient-facing areas or in public or staffing areas, only to be contradicted later by the Chief Health Officer that they were in two locations—one accessible to staff and the other accessible to visitors? When did remediation occur at the two sites tested on 5 August 2025 and were they in operation before being resampled on 5 September? What sampling protocol is used and how does this protocol compare with the 2018 CHO assurance protocols used prior to the opening of PCH? Why in the document tabled with the answer to Legislative Council question without notice 707 on 11 September 2025 is there no mention of retesting of the sites of the samples taken in the pantry and lounge on 5 August 2025 and in the lounge and two pantry samples taken on 5 September 2025? Was water testing undertaken at PCH between May 2025 and August 2025 and, if so, did any samples return positive lead levels? Has the Chief Health Officer recommended changes to the testing regime since the National Health and Medical Research Council halved the maximum safe level in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines from 0.01 milligrams per litre to 0.005 milligrams per litre, which came into effect on 25 June? As publicly stated by the Australian Medical Association, will she reveal the full extent—that is what it has asked for—of what has been observed in all 16 lead exceedences? Will the minister give the public the respect it deserves and be completely honest and fully transparent about all 16 lead exceedences so that Western Australians can be confident in the safety of the water quality at PCH. I quote the Health Consumers' Council WA:

In the absence of a clear and trusted information source where they can get the answers to the questions that they have, people do start to, potentially reach conclusions that might not be right …

I ask that the minister provide the following information to Parliament. Will the minister provide the full water-testing regime, positive lead-sampling results received, remediation taking place and retesting results at every location in Perth Children's Hospital since it opened in 2018? Will the minister outline to this place the dates the health department and her office were notified of these lead exceedences and advice provided to not notify the public of this information? Will the minister outline how many locations in PCH can be tested, how often each are tested and what criteria determines the locations that are tested since the opening of PCH in 2018? Will the minister confirm that all repairs or installations of plumbing products at Perth Children's Hospital are undertaken by a licensed plumber? I also ask that the minister confirms that all materials in contact with drinking water at PCH are compliant with the lead-free requirements of the Plumbing Code of Australia. What threshold of criteria beyond exceedence of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines does the Chief Health Officer use to determine whether an exceedence is a risk to the safety of patients or staff?

I also ask: Who is responsible for making the final decision on whether an exceedence is publicly communicated? Given that the AMA has said that even a small amount of lead in the water can have a pretty significant impact on development, particularly in children, has Perth Children's Hospital or the health department offered precautionary blood lead testing to high-risk cohorts since opening? What laboratory and chain of custody procedures are used for current testing? Who audits the sampling and reporting? And will the government commit to a public dashboard for all WA hospitals showing monthly lead and Legionella results and exceedences and the remedial status to renew the public's confidence in the health system?

Over the last 11 days the public of Western Australia has made it abundantly clear that nothing short of full transparency is acceptable to return their faith in this issue at Perth Children's Hospital. After all, we are talking about lead in the water at a hospital, and not just any hospital but Perth Children's Hospital. The AMA said that it expects:

… that any future instances of exceedance of lead levels, or any similar work safety concerns that require remediation are communicated by PCH management to doctors on the site in the most appropriate and timely manner.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said:

Along with all workers, nurses and midwives are entitled to a safe workplace, and the patients they care for deserve a healthy environment.

The Health Consumers' Council WA said:

… we really encourage more transparency and information, that's written thinking about if these patients and families are reading this, what might they be worried about?

Today the government and the Minister for Health have an opportunity to renew public confidence in the water quality at Perth Children's Hospital. The minister has resorted to prepared talking points when we have asked questions in this place over recent weeks. That is fine, I suppose, if the minister is not certain of the answers that need to be given. However, that does not apply now because all the questions I have asked were provided to the minister's office earlier this morning. There was time for comments to be prepared and for her to answer those questions in the spirit in which they were asked.

We have repeatedly seen the Premier duck and dive and weave and refuse to take responsibility. We have seen the Labor Party make a mockery of its promised gold-standard transparency over and over again. But the minister now has the opportunity to answer the questions that we have given notice of—all of which are unanswered to date. It is incumbent on this government and the minister to be fully transparent. The experts are calling for this. The staff of Perth Children's Hospital deserve this. The patients at Perth Children's Hospital deserve to know that the levels of lead in the water are safe. If they have gone over the prescribed level, the patients are entitled to be informed, as are their families. No-one should accept any less from this state government. This is a test of the government's transparency and integrity.

Again, I say that we are talking about lead in the water at Perth Children's Hospital, a topic the former shadow Minister for Health, the now Premier, described as something that should strike fear into the heart of every Western Australian. The National Health and Medical Research Council says that lead consumption can severely affect the central nervous system, with young children and babies the most susceptible. But still this government does not think that patients, parents or staff have a right to know when lead levels are high.

Today I provide those questions in advance, and I provide the minister with an opportunity to be transparent, honest and accountable and to demonstrate that the wellbeing of patients, staff, families and everybody who enters Perth Children's Hospital is the minister's first priority. It is not too much to ask for a full level of transparency and accountability instead of the usual deflect, deny, discredit or dismiss that we have seen so often in the 42nd Parliament of Western Australia.

Ms Meredith Hammat (Girrawheen—Minister for Health) (3:16 pm): Are there no more speakers?

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members, thank you.

Ms Meredith Hammat: Sorry, we have been caught on the hop because it is customary for members of the opposition to speak for the full period of time they are allocated on any matter of public interest, so I am surprised that they concluded their contribution after such a short time. It is worth noting for those opposite that it will not make any difference to the period of time we have to respond; it is the same amount of time. The opposition might want to note that for future reference.

We will not be supporting the matter of public interest that is listed on the notice paper today. This is a really important debate. I want to begin, importantly, by reiterating that the Chief Health Officer has advised that the water at Perth Children's Hospital is safe to drink. We have said that on every occasion and it is the case. This is important. It is the view of the expert, the Chief Health Officer, that the water is safe to drink. As I have said before, the safety of our patients and staff remains of the utmost importance to the government.

It is important that we reflect and include the advice from the Chief Health Officer. I tabled it for a very specific reason. It is because it is the view of our most senior expert in Western Australia. That is why we did it. He is the person best placed to give advice, and that advice should be followed. He said in his note to me, which I have tabled, but I am going to include it, because in the end his advice is the advice we follow:

I have reviewed the five new exceedances recorded in August and September 2025 and can assure the community that the water at Perth Children's Hospital is safe to drink.

The testing recently conducted during August was part of the Perth Children's Hospital well-established testing program and the September results were an outcome of Child and Adolescent Health Service proactively retesting to ensure the safety of all patients and staff.

I have confidence in this testing, it is a proactive program so that the Child and Adolescent Health Service can undertake the necessary remediation when exceedances are detected. I am advised that these sites are currently offline and under remediation. Exceedances are typically isolated to specific outlets or fixtures, and do not impact the entire hospital water system.

In June 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council updated the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and lowered the threshold for lead in drinking water, which now makes Australian standards some of the most rigorous in the world.

The Perth Children's Hospital water testing program which completes about 740 samples annually, in approximately 52 locations, demonstrates the hospital has a committed program in place aligned to the national benchmark for drinking water safety. The testing program at Perth Children's Hospital is working, and it is identifying the results that the hospital needs to know and allows CAHS the opportunity to act on them and remediate the issue, which they have done.

I can assure you that the water at Perth Children's Hospital remains safe to drink. The program in place demonstrates a strong commitment to national benchmarks for drinking water safety and ensures that any exceedances are promptly detected and addressed.

That is the considered view of our Chief Health Officer. The reason that correspondence is important is that it provides important context for the testing results. Although many people might have opinions, we listen to the opinion of the Chief Health Officer. That is his job: he provides expert advice. Of course, that is important to understand. That is why we have taken his advice on this issue and why we will continue to take his advice on this issue.

I want to underline the importance of the testing regime. As I have said before in this place, I am advised that there is a rigorous testing regime at the Perth Children's Hospital, and that is because of the history of that site. It is a matter of history that there were a number of problems with lead in the pipes and asbestos in the ceilings as a result of the construction work undertaken by the former Liberal–National government. That is the legacy they left behind. They left a children's hospital with ongoing lead problems and lots of asbestos remediation work needing to be undertaken. In our contribution today, we will reflect on that because it is an important part of the story of how we arrived at this place.

I am advised that the testing regime in place is rigorous. The opinion of the Chief Health Officer is that it is indeed rigorous and appropriate. The actions taken when exceedences are identified are an important part of the ongoing management of the situation. We will continue to listen to the Chief Health Officer, and we will take his advice about the steps we need to take.

I have put in place a new direction so that we can give the community confidence about the water testing and how it is reported to the department, the Chief Health Officer and to me as minister. That was the statement I made in Parliament last week. I have asked the director general of the Department of Health to implement a requirement that all health service providers regularly report the results of their water testing regimes to the department and immediately notify the Chief Health Officer in writing when an exceedence of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines is detected. As part of that, the Chief Health Officer will be required to report to the director general monthly on exceedences, not just for lead but also for Legionella and other pathogens, and, importantly, on how those exceedences have been rectified. I have been clear that any exceedences that present a risk to patients or staff will be reported to me, as minister, and we will follow the advice of the Chief Health Officer to then perform appropriate notifications to ensure that there is no risk to patients or staff. Again, I come back to the advice of the Chief Health Officer: there is no risk as a result of the exceedences that have been identified. The water is safe to drink.

Many people may have heard this on the ABC on Friday. I know that the Leader of the Opposition loves to quote extensively from the media. I will not quote the whole interview, although I have the transcript. ABC radio invited a toxicology expert, Dr Ian Musgrave from the University of Adelaide, to talk about the exceedences that had been identified. He was clear, so I am quoting him:

I would not say that those [levels] are dangerous. Again we're talking about these exposures have to be long term and so again these were identified and shut down so that they are no longer available …

He is reinforcing the importance of the testing program and how those levels are managed. It is quite a long transcript, and I am very happy to make it available to members opposite if they wish to see it. As an expert, independent of this state, he confirmed the advice that we had received from the Chief Health Officer about the appropriateness of the testing regime and the remediation that takes place, and the fact that the exceedences that have been identified do not present a health risk to the community, whether it is to patients or staff.

I want to reiterate the point I made: we are committed to transparency and making sure that we have appropriate monitoring in place. That is why we have put in place the new direction. It is to ensure that the results of testing happening at our health service providers are fed to the department and are considered by the expert. His job is to be an expert and provide advice to government. The results are fed to him and, if exceedences present a risk to public safety, I am advised. We have put in place additional procedures. We will continue to monitor the situation closely. We have released the results of the exceedences that were identified in August and September this year, as well as the exceedences that were identified earlier, and we have specifically provided the advice of the Chief Health Officer so that there is appropriate context for interpreting those results. We will continue to monitor the situation closely. As I said, this work will be ongoing because of some of the legacy of the construction work that was done by the Liberal–National government when building the facility. With that, I will bring my contribution to an end.

Sorry, perhaps I will address the long list of questions the member opposite provided as part of today's matter of public interest. Questions can be asked in this place in a number of ways: in question time and in questions on notice. It is not customary to use MPIs as an extended form of question time. It is, indeed, a time for debate and for considering issues. Actually, it is a time for the alternative government members to put their vision of what they would do if they were in government. As we stand here today, there is no sign of that at all. If the member wants to follow up those questions, there are a variety of ways that that can be done, but we are very happy to talk about the work we are doing at Perth Children's Hospital and across the board to ensure that we have appropriate testing in place. I think that the context for how we got here is important. I will leave that there so some of the other members may make a contribution.

Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson (Morley—Minister for Energy and Decarbonisation) (3:28 pm): I rise to speak to the motion. Of course, we will not be supporting this motion. There is some important context when it comes to the Perth Children's Hospital. These issues are related to the location of the hospital and the decision to build the hospital there. There will be legacy issues in the hospital for some time to come, which is why there is so much active and proactive water testing at the hospital.

We will start with the location of Perth Children's Hospital, despite years of meticulous planning, and consultation and work with the community and the clinical workforce developing the Reid review. The Reid review was a blueprint for where we needed to locate hospitals. One of the recommendations was, of course, to build Fiona Stanley Hospital, decant Fremantle Hospital's emergency department to Fiona Stanley and scale down Fremantle Hospital. The other important part of the Reid review was to build the women's and newborns' hospital in the location where Perth Children's Hospital is, but prior to the 2008 election, the Liberal Party tore up all of that planning and expert advice. It threw it away and said, "We're going to build the children's hospital there," without actual references to evidence, consultation, discussion or reasons. Therefore, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, the oldest hospital at 100 years old, was to remain, and women still had its ageing infrastructure. The Liberal Party said, "We don't have any plan to do anything for the women of Australia, but we will build the children's hospital there."

Let us just go through the process of the bill. I am acutely aware that the Attorney General chaired a parliamentary inquiry into the processes of this bill and is far more of an expert than me, but I watched it very closely. The former government chose the location purely, I do not know why, by ignoring all the evidence and advice and the planning that had gone into where the hospital needed to go. The original date for the opening of Perth Children's Hospital was 2015. Not only was it due to open in 2015, but also it was too small. The then government knew it was too small. Offers were made by philanthropic individuals to provide another two floors to the hospital and those offers were declined by the then Premier, Colin Barnett. That is my understanding. The former Liberal–National government dug in and said that it would build the same number of beds, so that on the day it opened it was already at capacity. That is the Liberal and National Party's legacy for Perth Children's Hospital. It was due to open in 2015 but was unable to do so because of delays and a range of issues with subcontractors, including a number of tragic suicides of individuals who were not paid by the head contractor on that build. We remember that well. That was one of the reasons we changed the law to ensure that subbies got paid. It was terrible management. Then we found asbestos in the roof, we found lead in the water, 900 doors had to be replaced and I think 100 fire doors had to be replaced. Asbestos material was also found in the pipes—they were contaminated. That all led to an entire parliamentary inquiry. It took three years to open the hospital. In fact, it took three years and a change of government to open the hospital because the former Liberal and National government was unable to open it. There was testing, more testing, retesting and fiddling trying to change things. I think all the fittings were changed—thousands of fittings—across the hospital at enormous expense. There were delays and delays and delays. In the end, we had a change of government and the Premier, as Minister for Health, and the then Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, took control. They took practical completion from John Holland and that was the catalyst that got things moving and the hospital open. The hospital was eventually opened in 2018 under this government. We will not be taking any lectures from the opposition on how to manage infrastructure builds, and particularly Perth Children's Hospital, because we are now dealing with a legacy issue from the decisions that were made in 2006 when the former government chose that location. That is what we are dealing with now.

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Minister, hang on. Members of the opposition, this is a matter of public interest. It works by you having your say and the government responding to the matter that the opposition has raised. You do not get to interject on the minister as she is responding. Minister, carry on.

Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson: We are now dealing with serious legacy issues across Perth Children's Hospital. There were massive infection control challenges around COVID that led to the closure of the basement car park because of the design. There was way too much emphasis on looking good and not enough on functionality. Ask anyone in the hospital and they will say the same. It looks amazing but it is very difficult to function in and to expand. On the day it opened, it was too small because the former government refused the offers of philanthropic partners to build extra floors. Despite campaigns and advocacy from patients, no extra beds were provided. It is our only quaternary children's hospital. It is the only highly specialised children's hospital in the state. There is nowhere else to decant acutely unwell children. That is why it is so important and that is why the former government's handling of it was so bad. To see this enormous fearmongering from the opposition about what was the result of extensive and proactive water testing because of these legacy issues is outrageous, frankly. The community should have confidence in our hospital and in the safety of the infrastructure because it is well looked after and is tested regularly. It is absolutely safe for people to access and use. They should have confidence in the clinical care they get there as well, despite all those legacy issues.

Another major legacy piece of infrastructure from the Liberal and National Parties, of course, was Fiona Stanley Hospital. That is something I watched extremely closely when we were in opposition and prior to when I came to Parliament. Fiona Stanley Hospital was the result of the Reid review planning that the south-eastern corridor was going to expand rapidly, and we have seen it continue to expand rapidly. That is one of the reasons the women's and babies' hospital will also be on that site. The Labor government put aside all the construction funding of, I think, around $1.8 billion into an account that was paid for out of the royalties of the resources boom at the time to ensure that the hospital would get built after the change in government in 2008. The hospital was built with the money that was put aside by the strong and sensible financial management of the then Labor Gallop and Carpenter governments. What did we then see? We saw the wholesale privatisation of the hospital. A $4.3 billion contract was awarded to Serco for 20 years, with no business case. Just to give some perspective, that is twice the cost of the construction of the hospital. It was entirely handed over and privatised to a private operator. Never in Western Australia had that kind of contract ever been implemented. There were serious questions about how that contract came into place and the way that entire process came about. We know that Serco was assertively wining and dining members of the government at the time because we FOI-ed the diaries and there they were having dinner with Serco just before the government decided to award a $4.3 billion public contract to an overseas company to run the premier tertiary hospital in Western Australia. There were major issues that were well ventilated through the Langoulant report, which was done by the highly regarded John Langoulant, former head of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. The compliance burden of reporting against all those indicators was ridiculous and impossible to report against. There were ineffective dispute resolution procedures and serious uncertainty around how to resolve those disputes.

We will not be taking lectures at all from the Liberal and National Parties about how to build and manage infrastructure when it is this government that has taken a sensible and planned approach to a record infrastructure build across Western Australia. Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance.

The Speaker: There are nine minutes to go.

Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson: Thank you very much.

In fact, the opposition went to the last election with a commitment to not build a hospital. That was the commitment it went with. It went to the last election with a commitment to not build a hospital and not to rebuild Royal Perth Hospital but to have a plan to rebuild Royal Perth Hospital and to cancel three other projects. Its commitment was to cancel three other projects. The opposition would cancel the brand-new women's and babies' hospital at Fiona Stanley Hospital, cancel the upgrade and expansion of Osborne Park Hospital and cancel the expansion of the neonatal facilities at Perth Children's Hospital. That was the opposition's commitment. It was to cancel—no, it would not support it. We will absolutely not take lectures from the opposition. It has a long history on this. We are proud of our record on health infrastructure and in delivering outstanding healthcare services across Western Australia. We are proud of our proactive management of the infrastructure legacy left by the former government.

Mr John Carey (Perth—Minister for Health Infrastructure) (3:38 pm): Just on a sidenote, that clock appears to be going forwards and backwards. I have no idea how much time is left. I will just talk for a bit. I do not know what is going on with the clock, but it jumped ahead and then stopped.

I just want to follow on from the last two speakers. I thank the member for Morley and reinforce what she said. The member went through the history of the site, which I think is critical to understanding the context and what our state government inherited and the challenges that that legacy has meant for Perth Children's Hospital. I note that we are seeing a deliberate campaign by the WA Liberals to undermine confidence in the Chief Health Officer in particular. As we know, that is a highly credible and respected position that provides the necessary expertise to inform decision-making by governments. Liberal and Labor governments will come and go, but, ultimately, we have to rely on the expertise and advice of those who have significant experience and excellent credentials. I know there is deep respect for the Chief Health Officer in the health profession and the hospital system, so it is disappointing that we are seeing a deliberate campaign to undermine public confidence in that role and the advice that that role provides to government. As the Minister for Health noted, the advice from the Chief Health Officer remains the same; that is, there is no risk to patient or staff safety, and the water is safe to drink. I note that the Minister for Health actually took the transparent action to table correspondence directly from the Chief Health Officer to provide further public confidence in that expertise and the advice that is being provided. I want to quote and put into Hansard what the Chief Health Officer said. He said:

The testing recently conducted during August was part of the Perth Children's Hospital well-established testing program and the September results were an outcome of Child and Adolescent Health Service proactively—

I emphasise "proactively"—

retesting to ensure the safety of all patients and staff.

He said this explicitly:

I have confidence in this testing, it is a proactive program so that the Child and Adolescent Health Service can undertake the necessary remediation when exceedances are detected. I am advised that these sites are currently offline and under remediation. Exceedances are typically isolated to specific outlets or fixtures, and do not impact the entire hospital water system.

Again, it could not be made more explicit. That advice is very explicit. He went on to say:

The Perth Children's Hospital water testing program which completes about 740 samples annually, in approximately 52 locations, demonstrates the hospital has a committed program in place aligned to the national benchmark for drinking water safety. The testing program at Perth Children's Hospital is working, and it is identifying the results that the hospital needs to know and allows CAHS the opportunity to act on them and remediate the issue, which they have done.

He ended with this explicit statement:

I can assure you that the water at Perth Children's Hospital remains safe to drink. The program in place demonstrates a strong commitment to national benchmarks for drinking water safety and ensures that any exceedances are promptly detected and addressed.

It is explicit, it is clear, it was written to the minister and it has been tabled in Parliament. The line of questioning that the Leader of the Liberals raised got down to this: What laboratory and chain of custody procedures are used for current testing? Who audits the sampling and reporting? That kind of questioning deliberately and specifically seeks to undermine public confidence. As we have seen again and again by the WA Liberals, they attack not just the government—that is what they do—but also, now, the role of the Chief Health Officer and the expertise that he is giving to government. We have to rely on that advice because he has the expertise. If we did not, I believe we would really start to downgrade or distrust the trained expertise and credibility of people such as Dr Andrew Robertson. The government will not be supporting this motion. I recognise the efforts of the health minister in putting that on the public record and tabling that information last week. That is being transparent to Western Australians.

Division

Question put and a division taken with the following result:

Ayes (12)Noes (39)

Question thus negatived.