Page 1351 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Smyth: So the solar farm will hit the bottom line?
MS GALLAGHER: Mr Smyth, when you were in cabinet, any grant to non-government organisations hit the bottom line. This is the predicament we are in—$200 million that we know we have to invest. It would be negligent of this government not to examine ways to make that investment without it hitting our bottom line. We cannot just go: “Oh, well, it hits our bottom line. Let’s just hand over $200 million to a non-government organisation, to an asset we don’t own, and put our operating result under that kind of pressure.” It is already under pressure without having to consider a $50 million a year capital grant, which is treated as recurrent expenditure, hitting our bottom line. That is the problem we have been trying to unpick with Calvary.
In many ways issues like looking at the third hospital would be easier for the government financially. It would be easier to fund a third hospital than to make that kind of recurrent expenditure at Calvary. Nobody who has critiqued the Treasury analysis has been able to prove that that money would not be treated as recurrent expenditure under the way that we present our budget or that it would not be considered by the ratings agency as having a deteriorating impact for a number of years off our bottom line. Indeed, it would prevent the government from providing $50 million worth of additional health services. Because you are actually funding your capital, you cannot actually fund the services. That is the predicament the government finds itself in.
It has been a long and complicated history with Calvary, but we have the willingness of the current operator and owner of that facility to support us in our quest to provide the best healthcare system for the people of the ACT. Little Company of Mary have voluntarily and willingly engaged in these discussions, because they understand from running the place the work that needs to be done and the pressure that is on, and they understand from working in partnership with the government the pressure that the current arrangements place on our budget. They understand it. They are a larger health provider than the ACT government. They understand it. They have willingly entered these discussions. They want to build a private hospital. They want to invest in that site and they want to allow the public hospital to flourish.
That is what we are being criticised for today—for trying to invest in a public hospital. When you have these discussions with health ministers around the country who face difficult issues at times, like closing services from time to time, I do not think anyone can believe the criticism that is coming from wanting to spend $200 million on a facility and to build a new public hospital for Belconnen. A new private hospital for Belconnen will come, because what you fellows seem to ignore is the fact that we will have to resume the private hospital very shortly to take over that place for public hospital beds. What is your idea around your private facility out there? You have none. You have not thought it through, because you do not understand the issues.
Now, I am more than happy to provide the Assembly with all the information that the Assembly seeks around this. I note Mr Hanson saying that Mrs Dunne uncovered the latest negotiations. Well, in a meeting with the archbishop, when it was requested that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video