❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's position on hospital privatisation and the opposition's stance on public-private partnerships (PPPs). The Minister defends the government's use of PPPs by citing examples in other states and highlighting the opposition leader's previous support for the model.
AnsweredQoN 95Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HOSPITALS — PRIVATISATION
I note that the Leader of the Opposition has today issued a media statement saying that legislation will be introduced to make it illegal to privatise Western Australia’s hospitals and health services, because the government is planning to privatise many hospitals. Will the minister explain the government’s position on this matter and whether the opposition’s current posturing reflects a complete reversal of its previous policy position regarding the involvement of the private sector in the provision of hospital infrastructure and services? Dr K.D. HAMES
I note that the Leader of the Opposition has today issued a media statement saying that legislation will be introduced to make it illegal to privatise Western Australia’s hospitals and health services, because the government is planning to privatise many hospitals. Will the minister explain the government’s position on this matter and whether the opposition’s current posturing reflects a complete reversal of its previous policy position regarding the involvement of the private sector in the provision of hospital infrastructure and services? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. The press release that has today been put out by the Leader of the Opposition is very interesting, regarding public–private partnerships arrangements — Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. The press release that has today been put out by the Leader of the Opposition is very interesting, regarding public–private partnerships arrangements — Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
I thank the member for the question. The press release that has today been put out by the Leader of the Opposition is very interesting, regarding public–private partnerships arrangements — Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
• public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community
What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. The press release that has today been put out by the Leader of the Opposition is very interesting, regarding public–private partnerships arrangements — Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
I thank the member for the question. The press release that has today been put out by the Leader of the Opposition is very interesting, regarding public–private partnerships arrangements — Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No-one on the other side will put out a press release like that! Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : They could not, and nor would they have the gall to do so. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that the privatisation of the construction and operation of Midland hospital raises serious concerns. He talks about ideologically motivated decisions. Let us talk about who actually supports the concept of public–private partnerships in Australia. First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
First, of course, in getting the approval for the joint funding arrangements that we have with Midland hospital—$180 million each from the state and the commonwealth—we went to the commonwealth asking if it had any objections to our running a Joondalup-style model for the Midland hospital construction. The response came back that it did not have philosophical objections; it was being done in other states, and it was up to us as a government to make the decision whether to proceed down that path. That is, firstly, the federal government that was not objecting. Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Let us look at the South Australian government, a Labor government, and what it thinks. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built under a public–private partnership. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Let us see what the Victorian government thinks about public–private partnerships. The Victorian government loves them so much that on its website it states — The Partnerships Victoria policy, introduced in 2000, provides the framework for a whole-of-government approach to the provision of public infrastructure and related ancillary services through public–private partnerships. There are 20 Partnerships Victoria projects in existence worth around $10.25 billion … One of those projects, of course, is the new Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria—a major Victorian project. The Victorian government put information on its website in 2007, and, this is what the Victorian Labor Premier had to say about public–private arrangements for the children’s hospital — Our experience to date is that it’s made things simpler: less red tape; less bureaucracy; easier to get things done. So, in terms of things like building maintenance, in terms of services in the hospital, those things, our experience to date is that these things are better done under these arrangements than has been the case under historic arrangements. That is what the Victorian government thinks. But let us come closer to home. Let us find out what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about public–private partnerships. That would be a pretty good idea. In December 2002 the Leader of the Opposition personally signed a Department of Treasury and Finance document entitled “Partnerships for Growth”. It states — PPPs differ from privatisation in that: • public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery This is the key area that talks about the provision of backroom services in government hospitals — • the private sector is paid according to its performance in reaching agreed ancillary service standards • the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community That is what the current Leader of the Opposition thought about public–private partnerships in 2002. What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
• public owned assets are not sold off to the private sector • in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• in many cases new assets which are initially funded by the private sector are eventually transferred to public ownership • core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• core services continue to be provided by the public sector • the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the public and private sectors share ancillary service delivery obligations • the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the Government, on behalf of the public, sets standards of ancillary service delivery
• the Government as a partner will always play a key role in ensuring that the use of assets and the delivery of ancillary services remains in the best interests of the community
What did he think about them in 2007? In 2007, Mr Ripper espoused the virtues of public–private partnerships. This quote is in relation to the Joondalup Health Campus, where the then government had just agreed to significantly expand the Joondalup private model of care for hospitals, which is exactly the same model we intend to promote for Midland hospital, but I would not be surprised if people such Ramsay Health Care and St John of God were key groups planning to put in applications to run this hospital. On 17 June 2008 the current Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament — we are proceeding with PPP negotiations on Joondalup Health Campus; and we have Peel Health Campus as an example of a PPP policy. Mr E.S. Ripper : That was the only way we could get expansion because of the contract signed by the Court government! Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The Leader of the Opposition supported it; if he had not supported it, he would never have expanded it enormously! Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We were locked in! Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Does the member for Joondalup oppose the Ramsay Health Care model of running the hospital? Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr A.P. O’Gorman : I oppose the way you bungled it in the first place! You bungled it in the first place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! The Minister for Health knows that if he engages with people and names them on the other side of this place, he should expect some feedback—I will use that word. In this case you are getting some feedback, minister. I urge you to reach a conclusion to your answer. Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I was not unhappy with the feedback, I have to say! The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
The final quote is from the foreword to the 2002 document, in which the now Leader of the Opposition stated — … the Western Australian Government recognises and will actively pursue PPPs as a way of delivering infrastructure and ancillary services … Mr E.S. Ripper : Infrastructure, not core public services! Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Is that your signature? Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : His signature is on the document! If a question was asked about why we want to engage in public–private partnerships of that model, it is, firstly, because we have seen the example that hospitals such as Joondalup show to all of us in how to run a hospital. But, secondly, we can look at the “Works Reform Business Solution Plan” and the section entitled “Appendix 1: Major Projects Cost Performance” to see how things fared under the former government. Under the government model, there were overruns in cost of 400 per cent for the Albany Entertainment Centre; Fiona Stanley Hospital — Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s construction; that’s not core services. Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
Dr K.D. HAMES : — overran by 319 per cent. The only project that was done under a public–private partnership, albeit in a small amount, was the Central Law Courts refurbishment—it is shaded in green—an overrun of 15 per cent.
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.