Adviser wants more hospital analysis

The state government’s top infrastructure adviser has provided heavily qualified support for the surprise relocation of the $1.8 billion Women and Babies Hospital to a site in Murdoch.

Infrastructure WA agreed the Murdoch site appeared to be a better option than the long-planned site at the QEII medical centre but called for more detailed analysis.

“Only an initial desktop analysis has been conducted at this stage,” it said in a report released today.

“Given the inherent risks associated with any infrastructure project of this nature, significant detailed further investigations and analysis will be required to sufficiently scope and de-risk a final option.”

Infrastructure WA was given just one month to prepare its report.

It was asked to do so after the government shocked the medical community by announcing in April it had opted to shift the new hospital to Murdoch.

The Australian Medical Association responded by panning the government’s decision, saying medical care would be compromised by the failure to co-locate the new hospitals with existing hospitals at QEII.

The government released today a partially-redacted business case (BC) and project definition plan (PDP) for building at the QEII site, which outlined a range of construction challenges.

Health minister Amber-Jade Sanderson said the business case supported the government’s decision.

“The risks of proceeding with the QEII site were insurmountable,” she said today.

Shadow health minister Libby Mettam had the opposite takeaway after focusing on health outcomes.

“Far from being a supporting document, the business case stated that co-locating the new hospital with Perth Children’s Hospital at the QEII site in Nedlands would provide the best outcomes for women and newborns,” she said.

“Nowhere in this business case does it state that moving the hospital to a site 20km down the road could address some of the challenges.”

Infrastructure WA acknowledged major issues with the QEII site but was more nuanced in its analysis.

“The detailed due diligence provided in the BC/PDP illustrates significant and unavoidable risks that even with mitigation would likely further impact construction timeframes (beyond 2034) and cost, and cause ongoing service disruption at the QEIIMC,” it said.

“These include multiple factors which cannot be reasonably mitigated at this stage, such as unforeseen ground condition issues associated with the brownfields nature of the site, and ongoing revisions to the construction methodology and schedule to avoid unforeseen impacts on health services.”

Infrastructure WA said demolition and construction works at the QEII site would cause noise, vibration and dust issues, but noted these stemmed from the plan to physically integrate the new hospital with existing buildings at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.

In contrast, the Murdoch option proposes a stand-alone building connected by a link bridge to the existing Fiona Stanley Hospital.

Infrastructure WA also noted that the demolition and construction activity at QEII would exacerbate challenges in managing staff and patient access for extended periods.

However, it added that “none of the QEIIMC transport and accessibility related risks are considered to be a critical flaw”.

It concluded (after its brief analysis) the Murdoch option was likely to provide less constraints and a greater flexibility to implement suitable transport solutions, helped by proximity to the Kwinana Freeway, major roads and the Mandurah rail line.

“Based on available information and IWA’s on-site observations it is evident that the FSH precinct is a less constrained, generally greenfield site that presents a more straightforward delivery option,” it said.

“The current configuration of buildings and services on site and location of adjacent construction activities for a new Women and Babies Hospital is less likely to cause significant service disruption and accessibility issues.”

It added that further detailed due diligence will be required to ensure delivery and construction risks are well understood and mitigated.

Asked about the lack of detailed analysis of the Murdoch site, Ms Sanderson had this to say:

“There was a review done by the department and the former architects and infrastructure experts who worked on the Fiona Stanley Hospital,” she told journalists.

The government has previously disclosed it spent just $16,500 on this analysis.

Despite IWA’s qualified analysis and call for more studies, Ms Sanderson asserted “there is a clear contrast between the Murdoch site and the QEII site”.

“The government owns all of the land at the Murdoch site so we don’t need to negotiate with third parties, which could potentially slow things down or compromise the design or the outcomes,” she said.

“It is a greenfields site where we intend to build the hospital and we will also have the opportunity to build two more multi-storey car parks.

“We are also working with Transport who have started their due diligence and the report from Transport via IWA is that this is far more accessible site for patients and staff.

“There is light and day in terms of infrastructure delivery at the Murdoch site versus the QEII site.”

Her confidence appears to be belied by the number of experts recruited in the past month to commence detailed analysis of the Murdoch site.

Business News has reported that at least 10 contracts were awarded last month to engineering and consulting firms.

This included contracts to Aurecon for traffic engineering and Silver Thomas Hanley for architectural services.

The minister's comment about third parties at the QEII site appears to be a reference to private company IPG, which has a long-term contract to provide parking facilities.

The Labor government has repeatedly criticised this contract yet the minister acknowledged negotiations were proceeding with IPG to provide additional parking at the QEII site.

Business News highlighted the significance of this contract last year, saying it could be the linchpin for future projects.