Page 2434 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not included in this year’s Appropriation Bill because there was no agreement reached around whether or not this was actually going to go ahead. If there is an appropriation, it is a capital appropriation. It would come through our unencumbered cash. It would not affect the budget bottom line. It would be a transaction of cash going out the door and an asset coming back onto our balance sheet.
In relation to recommendation 55, of course plans would be developed if the sale did not proceed. First, the status quo would continue in the short term. In the longer term if the sale does not proceed there will be a genuine issue around how we provide hospital services to the people on the north side. Say there was an alternative government, be it this government or a Green government. I cannot even bear to think about a Liberal government. I just pretend that that would never happen and that the people are too smart for that. But say there was an alternative government not of a Labor Party colour. It would not be able to invest $200 million off its bottom line in a grant to a third party and sustain a budget. You just simply could not do it and that is the reality.
If this sale does not go ahead, additional plans will need to be resolved and they would have to cover things such as another hospital on the north side, which would be crazy and we do not want to do that at all, or looking again at opportunities that exist within that site, if there are any. We have not got to that point in time. So I am very happy to do that.
In relation to Mr Hanson’s concerns around a business case and Mr Smyth’s view and twisting of the truth that occurred this morning around my answer to his question on notice, there have been a number of reviews into the government’s arrangements at Calvary, including the latest one that I would be aware of that has been published. I refer to the Auditor-General’s report that was published in July last year. There have been other reviews that have been done, whether they have been through the government or through a joint process with Calvary. All of those are feeding into the discussions and the negotiations that we are having at the moment, and it is quite right that they do.
Mr Smyth, I think, went to the point that his government had been criticised for not having a paper trail or relevant documents. There is an extensive paper trail on this but, yes, that paper is currently being considered by the government and by Little Company of Mary throughout this negotiation process. It is only right that that material be protected to a point where it can be made available to members.
I have always taken the view that we should make as much information available as possible, but I have taken advice on this. I have sought opinions about what we can release and what we cannot. At this point in time, when we are in quite detailed negotiations around an appropriate price for the facility, that information should remain commercial-in-confidence. But I can assure you that an appropriation will come, debate will be had, an estimates committee would be convened, I imagine, and we would be very able to sit there and answer in very close detail any questions that other members of the Assembly may have about this. This debate is a good thing for the people of the ACT to have and I am very proud that the government has been leading those discussions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .