❓ Opposition questions the government about payments to the private operator of the QEII Medical Centre car park, citing low usage and a 2012 Treasury document. The Minister deflects responsibility to the Treasurer and defends the public-private partnership as a cost-effective solution.
AnsweredQoN 544Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
QUEEN
ELIZABETH II MEDICAL CENTRE — CAR PARKING
544. Mr R.H. COOK to the
Minister for Health:
I refer to the January 2012 project summary by the Department
of Treasury titled ''Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Car Parking
Project'' and the assertion in the project summary that states —
The State is not required to
financially contribute to the Project or underwrite a minimum level of car
parking demand.
(1) Why are
taxpayers having to pay half a million dollars a month to the private operator
of the car park with no cars?
(2) Is this
not just a clear sign that the government's privatisation experiment in
health has failed and WA taxpayers and patients are paying the price?
(3) Why did the minister's government sign such a contract?
ELIZABETH II MEDICAL CENTRE — CAR PARKING
544. Mr R.H. COOK to the
Minister for Health:
I refer to the January 2012 project summary by the Department
of Treasury titled ''Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Car Parking
Project'' and the assertion in the project summary that states —
The State is not required to
financially contribute to the Project or underwrite a minimum level of car
parking demand.
(1) Why are
taxpayers having to pay half a million dollars a month to the private operator
of the car park with no cars?
(2) Is this
not just a clear sign that the government's privatisation experiment in
health has failed and WA taxpayers and patients are paying the price?
(3) Why did the minister's government sign such a contract?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) I think the document that the member
referred to was a Department of Treasury document, so in that sense his
question should be directed to the Treasurer. He has responsibility for the
Department of Treasury, not me.
Several
members interjected.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : It
is just a statement of fact.
In relation to parking at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical
Centre site, clearly it is necessary to provide an adequate amount of parking
given that a major new $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital is being
developed on the site, and there have been other developments as well. Going
back to 2010, the government went out to the market and sought expressions of
interest in relation to potential builders and operators of a new 3 000-bay car
parking facility, which is now there. It is a multistorey car park that
provides, as I said, an extra 3 000 bays that were not there previously.
Somehow or other, this major new development had to be paid for. The opposition
might find it hard to understand that, but it had to be paid for out of either
the consolidated fund directly by the government or the health budget, which
would have affected what other projects in building new hospitals across the
state could be undertaken, or it could have been funded by the private sector
and then paid for by users.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : The decision was made within the government in 2011, five years
ago, to put in place a contract following a competitive tendering process
essentially that provided value for money to the state, and to taxpayers
therefore, in relation to getting a new $125 million facility. That is the
background to what happened.
As I understand it, part of the
contract that was put in place was that there would be a mechanism to deal with
a shortfall in revenue should the opening of the children's hospital be
delayed. Its opening is delayed through no fault of the government. We are as
frustrated as anyone that it has taken as long as it has for the project to be
completed. Everybody wants it to completed, not least us. We want it to be in
use. It is going to be a fantastic facility when it is there. Part of the
contract provides for the private operators to be compensated if there is a shortfall
in revenue due to the delay in the hospital opening, and that is what is
happening. It has been a public–private partnership that has avoided
taxpayers directly funding this major new parking facility. It provides a lot
more parking than has been the case at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children.
It is a modern, new facility and somehow or other it had to be paid for. This
problem would not have occurred if the Labor Party was in office, because it
would never have built this hospital.
referred to was a Department of Treasury document, so in that sense his
question should be directed to the Treasurer. He has responsibility for the
Department of Treasury, not me.
Several
members interjected.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : It
is just a statement of fact.
In relation to parking at the Queen Elizabeth II Medical
Centre site, clearly it is necessary to provide an adequate amount of parking
given that a major new $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital is being
developed on the site, and there have been other developments as well. Going
back to 2010, the government went out to the market and sought expressions of
interest in relation to potential builders and operators of a new 3 000-bay car
parking facility, which is now there. It is a multistorey car park that
provides, as I said, an extra 3 000 bays that were not there previously.
Somehow or other, this major new development had to be paid for. The opposition
might find it hard to understand that, but it had to be paid for out of either
the consolidated fund directly by the government or the health budget, which
would have affected what other projects in building new hospitals across the
state could be undertaken, or it could have been funded by the private sector
and then paid for by users.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
J.H.D. DAY : The decision was made within the government in 2011, five years
ago, to put in place a contract following a competitive tendering process
essentially that provided value for money to the state, and to taxpayers
therefore, in relation to getting a new $125 million facility. That is the
background to what happened.
As I understand it, part of the
contract that was put in place was that there would be a mechanism to deal with
a shortfall in revenue should the opening of the children's hospital be
delayed. Its opening is delayed through no fault of the government. We are as
frustrated as anyone that it has taken as long as it has for the project to be
completed. Everybody wants it to completed, not least us. We want it to be in
use. It is going to be a fantastic facility when it is there. Part of the
contract provides for the private operators to be compensated if there is a shortfall
in revenue due to the delay in the hospital opening, and that is what is
happening. It has been a public–private partnership that has avoided
taxpayers directly funding this major new parking facility. It provides a lot
more parking than has been the case at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children.
It is a modern, new facility and somehow or other it had to be paid for. This
problem would not have occurred if the Labor Party was in office, because it
would never have built this hospital.
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.