❓ Question regarding savings from the Serco contract for non-essential services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. The Treasurer details the contract's value, duration, and projected savings, leading to heated debate and points of order.
AnsweredQoN 462Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Fiona Stanley Hospital — Serco Contract
I understand that the contract to deliver non-essential services at Fiona Stanley Hospital has been signed with the company Serco. Could the Treasurer please detail for the house the savings made for taxpayers in the signing of this contract? Mr C.C. PORTER
I understand that the contract to deliver non-essential services at Fiona Stanley Hospital has been signed with the company Serco. Could the Treasurer please detail for the house the savings made for taxpayers in the signing of this contract? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question; I know that he takes a particular interest in these matters. I also thank the Minister for Health who was pivotal in negotiating this very large, very detailed contract that will save Western Australian taxpayers a very large amount of money. What I might do to start off with is address some of the points the member raised. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question; I know that he takes a particular interest in these matters. I also thank the Minister for Health who was pivotal in negotiating this very large, very detailed contract that will save Western Australian taxpayers a very large amount of money. What I might do to start off with is address some of the points the member raised. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
I thank the member for his question; I know that he takes a particular interest in these matters. I also thank the Minister for Health who was pivotal in negotiating this very large, very detailed contract that will save Western Australian taxpayers a very large amount of money. What I might do to start off with is address some of the points the member raised. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
· A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands …
Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question; I know that he takes a particular interest in these matters. I also thank the Minister for Health who was pivotal in negotiating this very large, very detailed contract that will save Western Australian taxpayers a very large amount of money. What I might do to start off with is address some of the points the member raised. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
I thank the member for his question; I know that he takes a particular interest in these matters. I also thank the Minister for Health who was pivotal in negotiating this very large, very detailed contract that will save Western Australian taxpayers a very large amount of money. What I might do to start off with is address some of the points the member raised. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Obviously, Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed at an estimated construction cost of $1.761 billion. Recently, the health minister completed the negotiation of the contract with Serco. To put that contract in context, it is a $4.3 billion contract over 20 years. It is, therefore, a 10-year contract with two potential five-year renewals, providing $3.5 billion for facility management and support services; $577 million for assets, including financing information and communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment; and $165 million for pre-operations and transition activities. Of course, the reason this government has embarked on this process, which was a process indeed that the previous government intended to embark on but it lost government — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s wrong. You should tell the truth to the house. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Of course it is true. Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It’s just a lie. Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Dr K.D. Hames : You talk to the people in the health department and see what they say. You talk to them. They were the ones doing it. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, I formally call you to order for the first time today! Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you. The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I formally call you for the second time today! Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I am going to ask that you withdraw the remark you made. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.C. PORTER : I think that at least this much we can agree on: members opposite are certainly not in favour of this process now, and indeed would reverse it, which I might come to in a moment. The process itself will save the taxpayers of Western Australia half a billion dollars over the life of the contract. If it were not for this contract, and given the opposition’s pretenced concern about debt, of course that is half a billion dollars that the taxpayer would have to fund. Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you table the analysis? Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr R.H. Cook : Show us the document! Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : The Treasurer is answering the question — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Quite simply, the Treasurer is answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What the model says is this: $148 million raw cash outlays saved; $67.9 million saved due to the adjustment for competitive neutrality; and $300 million saved due to the transfer of risks from the state to Serco. That is taxpayer savings of $500 million — Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Treasurer appears to be quoting from an official document. I ask you to ask him to table it at the conclusion of his answer. The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I am not going to do that at this time, Leader of the Opposition. What I will do is ask the Treasurer to provide me with that document, and I will make that decision. Questions without Notice Resumed Opposition members interjected Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is just notes! Indeed — Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It has just been torn off! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : What the Treasurer has just done is a form of canvassing the Speaker’s ruling. By interfering with a document that the Speaker has asked to look at post his question, he has now interfered with that document. I think it is a contempt of this Parliament for him to do that. The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Members, I will make that decision. I thank you for your advice, member for Rockingham. I am going to look at these documents. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for Willagee. Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Treasurer, I expect to see those documents. Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Indeed, Mr Speaker. What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
What services will be delivered inside this public hospital by a cooperative partnership with the private sector that will bring the world as we know it to an end? There are around 28 of them. They include such things as energy and utilities, grounds maintenance, internal logistics, patient entertainment, and pest control. One would have thought these are logical areas in which to engage the company to deliver services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in an efficient manner inside a public hospital—but not for the opposition. What is its policy with respect to these issues? As I understand it, Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party’s policy is in effect to reverse all of these contracts. Is that not the case? Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We would not expand them, we would not extend them, and we will bring the services back in-house as we did after 2001. It is a very clear policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : So, the Labor Party will bring the services back in-house. That raises some interesting questions. I think that is a fair characterisation of the opposition’s policy. I noted that United Voice said on its website — United Voice Members moved a number of major changes to the ALP platform. The platform is the blue print for any re-elected Labor government. Our successes included: · A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands … Premier, clearly United Voice has had its way because you have said—sorry; Leader of the Opposition — Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
· A strong commitment to return private hospital contracts at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Peel health campus, Joondalup health campus and Midland back to public hands …
Mr E.S. Ripper : It will not be long! Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : You can get yourself in problems quoting the Premier! I am not going to do that. The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The Leader of the Opposition has said — “If the Barnett Government signs the contract with Serco a future Labor government would do whatever it could to reverse the decision, including include negotiating with Serco to bring an early end to the contract.” The negotiator-in-chief would approach Serco and say, “I know that you’ve just signed a $4.3 billion, 20-year contract, but how about you bring it to an early completion? How about you do that?” That is — Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : What an outrage! Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What an outrage! What a patent nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition would wander into Serco’s office in 19 months and talk Serco out of a $4.3 billion contract! One of the other options for the Leader of the Opposition would be to take the route of his deputy, who said that a Labor government would seek to terminate the contract of Health Solutions to run the hospital. Obviously there the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Peel Health Campus. A very interesting thing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of is that when a contract is terminated there can be very considerable costs. Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr R.H. Cook : We’ll never know what they are because you are doing it in secret, aren’t you? Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Dr K.D. Hames : You were in government when the contract was in place! Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In any event, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s party was in power and, had it read the contract at that stage, it would realise that the full value of the contract is about $90 million per annum. There are seven years remaining on the contracts. We are advised that profits are about $4 million per annum. Therefore, if the contract was simply terminated for convenience because a different policy view was taken, which can be done with contracts of this nature, that could cost the taxpayer of Western Australia anywhere between $28 million and $90 million, merely because — Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr E.S. Ripper : A bit of robust management and it might not cost us anything. Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Robust management? Terminating a contract signed by two parties is a very broad definition of robust management; it is sheer termination. We have contracts delivering high-quality services at low cost to the taxpayer and the opposition’s policy is to come into government at some unforeseen time and to terminate these contracts at enormous potential litigious cost to the taxpayer of Western Australia. What an absolutely ridiculous outcome. Mr Speaker, you have asked to see the documents. The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Yes, please. Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Several members interjected. Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr P. Papalia : How dishonest! The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, you know better! I formally call you to order for the first time today. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : I do not expect anyone to be talking at this point. Treasurer, will you provide me with those documents? Withdrawal of Remark Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The member for Warnbro referred to the Treasurer as dishonest. I ask that he withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, if you did make that comment, I would ask that you withdraw it. Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr P. PAPALIA : Mr Speaker, I said, “How dishonest was the behaviour of the Treasurer?” Therefore, I will withdraw my comments if you ask me to. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : I clearly heard the Speaker ask the Treasurer on two occasions to provide him with those documents. The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Yes. Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Mr M. McGOWAN : From my observation, it appears that there is only one document being handed over and as we can see, it is quite clearly ripped. I would ask the Treasurer to provide the other documents. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I would ask to see the documents; that is plural.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.