Page 5098 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
$200 million that this Assembly would agree to pay any other organisation in Canberra to run a service on our behalf? I cannot think of one; I am sure Mr Smyth will come up with someone if there has been an example of this.
But to give an example which supports the opposition’s argument that we should just fund the upgrade and keep the current arrangements in place despite the current owner wanting to sell—if we look at financing the upgrade over a six-year period, our budget deficit would increase to $289 million in 2010-11, $249 million in 2011-12 and $238 million in 2012-13. That would be the first three years of a six-year commitment to fund the upgrade of Calvary Public Hospital through our operating result.
And that is before we do anything else, Mr Smyth. You have had problems with a seven-year budget recovery strategy. If we agree to your position—your opposition’s position—on Calvary, you are driving the deficit of the ACT budget way beyond seven years unless you are coming up with a saving strategy to recover this kind of outlay as a gift to a third party.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Hanson?
MR HANSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, given that your own Treasury analysis shows that the cash impact of acquiring Calvary hospital will be in excess of $160 million, how is that a cost-effective purchase?
MS GALLAGHER: We have signed up to Dr Dwyer’s analysis. On a purely cash analysis, it is like, der—we are buying the hospital; of course it is going to cost more. It is $110 million.
Mr Hanson: No, it’s 110 without the financing. With the financing it’s 160.
MS GALLAGHER: It is not. In net present value terms, Mr Hanson, it is $110 million. Guess what? The people of the ACT, in return for outlaying that cash, get something in return—a hospital. From a cash point of view, we outlay some money—this is what we usually do in these sorts of transactions—and then we get something in return. Under Mr Hanson’s strategy, under the opposition’s strategy, guess what? We get $200 million and we just hand it to somebody: “There you go.”
MR HANSON: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: On Ross Solly’s morning program last week, Mr Stanhope described the $145 million balance sheet impact as savings. Minister, do you agree that they are indeed savings?
MS GALLAGHER: Yes, they are, Mr Hanson. You have had an extensive Treasury briefing. The analysis is there. It clearly shows that, over a 20-year period, we are $145.7 million better off on our budget—
Mr Hanson: Balance sheet impact: are they savings?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video