Page 4725 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
concept of recurrent versus capital. The financial analysis of this transaction has to be seen from the operating impact, has to be seen from the balance sheet impact and has to be seen from the cash impact. The Liberals in their blatant refusal to consider this have to respond to, I think, questions from the community about the $145 million improvement over a 20-year period in our operating balance, and you are just prepared to ignore that.
That is the question for you—you are prepared to ignore it; you ignore the fact that this is the most cost effective way to manage the future health needs of this community. Nobody can dispute that. You can argue about accounting treatments, but nobody goes to the point that in return for our outlay of cash we get an asset back—we get the asset back and a $145 million improvement on our balance sheet. That is what we get; that is what the people of the ACT get. They get to own and operate their public hospital and they know their taxpayer funds are used to finance and rebuild the public hospital system on the north side of Canberra. It is an asset for the entire community; it is not a gift to a third party.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary question?
MR HANSON: Minister, will the government raise taxes to accommodate this cash cost in its budget or will it cut services to the community elsewhere?
MS GALLAGHER: Again, the shadow minister fails to grasp the financial analysis. I note that in his original question he, I think, implied that the Treasury analysis had been determined to fit the government’s proposal. I just would urge members in this place not to besmirch the reputation of Treasury officials who were given a job to do—and act in the interests of the public service and the community more generally to analyse—
Opposition members interjecting—
MS GALLAGHER: You go and read your question where you said that the Treasury analysis was used to fit the government’s proposal. The issue here is that we have the cash available to purchase this.
Opposition members interjecting—
MS GALLAGHER: We have the cash available to purchase this. The operating impact on our budget—the buy is the most cost-effective way forward. Mr Hanson, you have not been able to dispute that. Nobody has been able to dispute that. Dr Dwyer’s comments did not go to the operating impact or to the balance sheet impact of the transaction. You cannot ignore them. These are matters of significant importance to any government of any political colour in this place. The status quo will result in a gift of $200 million to a third party and it will hit our operating impact. It will hit it. If you think about the deficits that we have to deal with in the next seven years—for example, if we made the decision—
Opposition members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video