The West Australian government will build a $1.8 billion maternity hospital on land within the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct, abandoning its original plan to build the facility at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre in Nedlands.
In a statement, the government said a business case had found construction on the proposed QEII site “posed too many risks, extended timelines and unacceptable patient disruption”.
“Building the hospital at the QEII site would have caused significant disruption to the neighbouring Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, which would have resulted in patients and staff being impacted, higher build costs, and the hospital opening much later than planned due to the complex nature of the build,” the statement said.
While the new site will carry the same price tag and has been funded in the budget, the government has already spent $10.4 million on the project, which it said had "assisted in informing the need for an alternative site".
Premier Mark McGowan said it would have been “irresponsible to proceed with a new hospital at QEII given the unacceptable disruption to patients and staff that has been identified through the planning process”.
In an “extra boost” to maternity services, the Osborne Park Hospital will also undergo further expansion of its obstetrics, gynaecology and neonatal services, birthing suites and theatres.
Neonatal services at Perth Children's Hospital will also be expanded.
New hospital site further from city
When the government first announced the new maternity hospital would be built in Nedlands, it said the central location was a "key factor" in future proofing the site "over a 40-year period".
The decision factored in "redevelopments of the Perth Children's Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, PathWest and teaching and research facilities".
"The central location ... allows for the future-proofing of the QEIIMC and will provide greater scope for enhanced patient amenities such as natural lighting, views and green space," Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson said last year.
The QEII facility is located five kilometres from Perth's CBD, while Fiona Stanley Hospital is in Murdoch, 16 kilometres south of the city.
Fiona Stanley the 'obvious choice'
Ms Sanderson said further assessment of the proposed QEII site had found multiple risks "to delivery, to time frame, potentially to cost, but most importantly, unacceptable disruption to staff and patients already working on a busy QEII site," she said.
"It is critically important that we co-locate the women's and newborns' hospital to a tertiary hospital so that our sickest women have access to an ICU, which is what makes Fiona Stanley the obvious choice."
Mr McGowan said the new plan ensured the project could get underway quicker, which was important given the state of the ageing King Edward Memorial Hospital.
"The [original] time frame would have meant it could have even gone out to 2034 before it could be fully built," he said.
"It's a much quicker build by 2029 and a more affordable build and we own the parking here.
"There would have been significant parking issues that would have required a resolution involving the private contractor."
Despite the money already spent on investigating the Nedlands site, the government was confident it had made the right decision.
"This site will be significantly cheaper because it's a greenfield site," Mr McGowan said.
"It's also close to Murdoch station across the way so it's got easier public transport access for the staff who wish to use public transport."
'Little consultation': AMA
The WA branch of the Australian Medical Association supports the move, but AMA WA President Mark Duncan-Smith said there was a lack of consultation with stakeholders.
"On the surface this decision does appear to be well thought out, there was concerns about the Charles Gairdner site by senior clinicians," he said.
"[But] There appears at this stage to be little to no consultation with stakeholders regarding this move.
"A lack of communication, especially with senior healthcare professionals, does start to smell of a lack of interest in their opinions."
But Ms Sanderson said a consultation process had been undertaken and had been at "the heart of this hospital".
"It's important to me as minister that women are front and centre of that consultation," she said.
"We will continue to consult with women in relation to this, this project and of course, the staff who will work there."
Issues should have been raised earlier: opposition
In a statement, shadow health spokesperson Libby Mettam said the issues in the original plan should have been flagged much earlier in the process.
"Parking and disruption to patients has always been a factor in this site and should have been considered before the site was chosen for this vital project," she said.
"This is supposed to be the McGowan government's signature project from the last election, yet it has wasted years twiddling its thumbs and we are now back to square one.
"The delay to this project due to a lack of basic planning is disappointing and points to a government that has been naval gazing instead of prioritising the delivery of this critical new women and babies hospital."
