Murdoch mums and bubs hospital hits another hurdle as builder goes bust
Murdoch Women and Babies Hospital builder Webuild has revealed it purchased the interest of its joint venture partner, Roberts Co, weeks before the company was placed in voluntary administration.
News of Roberts Co's collapse this week cast doubt over the ability of the Italian construction giant to build the $1.8 billion facility after it and Roberts Co were put in the hot seat in December.
Roberts Co, owned by billionaire Andrew Roberts, was placed in administration earlier this week.
In a statement, Webuild downplayed Roberts Co's stake in the WA Life joint venture, and revealed it had purchased its interests a few weeks ago, noting the company was in financial distress.
A spokeswoman said the purchase was made with the WA government's permission and that Webuild was close to announcing a deal.
'Since being named as preferred [builder] in December 2024, WA Life and the state government have been working closely and collaboratively to finalise the contract,' she said.
'During this period, Roberts Co, who held a minor participation interest in WA Life, have advised that they wished to withdraw from the WA Life team.
'Both the state and WA Life have agreed to this request, whilst ensuring that all critical resources continue to be available for delivery.
'Over recent months the state and Webuild as WA Life have continued negotiations, in the same open and collaborative manner, and are close to finalising all aspects of the contract for the new hospital facilities
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
2 days ago
- The Age
British parliament votes to end ‘cruel' abortion prosecutions for women
In 2023, Carla Foster received a 28-month prison sentence after she admitted taking abortion pills to induce a miscarriage during the initial COVID lockdown in 2020, when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant. She was released after just one month in custody following a successful appeal. Another case involved Nicola Packer, who was charged after taking the medications mifepristone and misoprostol at about 26 weeks of pregnancy. She denied knowing that she was more than 10 weeks pregnant and was acquitted by a jury. The reform does not extend to medical professionals or anyone else involved in abortions performed outside existing legal frameworks. Nor does it alter the clinical requirements of the 1967 Act, which permits abortions up to 24 weeks with authorisation from two doctors, and after that point only under limited and exceptional circumstances. Not all within the government backed the change. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood opposed the amendment, warning of risks it might introduce. 'I am deeply concerned to see these measures being progressed in the name of women's rights, when the potential physical and mental impacts on women would be so devastating,' she wrote to constituents. 'I oppose extending abortions up until the point of birth beyond the exemptions that currently exist, as doing so would not only be unnecessary but dangerous.' Antoniazzi made clear the measure would not affect healthcare provisions: the clause 'would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting', she said, reiterating that the current time limits and clinical conditions would remain. The UK vote lands at a moment of flux in abortion access across Europe, where legal protections are often undermined by logistical or cultural barriers. Despite most EU countries allowing abortion under certain conditions, many women — an estimated 4500 in 2022 — still travel abroad to access care. Loading The Netherlands received 2762 women from Germany, Poland, Belgium, France, and Ireland in 2022 alone. Spain recorded about 1500 cross-border abortion cases in the same year. Hundreds more travelled to the UK for the same reason. Notably, only two EU member states – Malta and Poland – impose near-total bans. But restrictive time limits, a lack of providers and religious or cultural resistance elsewhere mean that abortion, while legal on paper, is inaccessible in practice. Women in France, Italy, and Croatia, for example, often struggle to access care due to 'conscientious objectors' – doctors who refuse to perform abortions. In some Italian regions, up to 90 per cent of physicians decline to carry out the procedure. Even in France, one-third of the UK-based Abortion Support Network's clients are French, many from rural areas without clinics. A recent survey found the average delay between discovering a pregnancy and accessing an abortion was four weeks – often because of waiting periods, lack of information, or difficulty in securing funds and time off work. A citizen-led initiative titled My Voice, My Choice has gathered more than a million signatures calling on the EU to fund abortion access across borders. But progress has been slow. The EU's health commissioner said the bloc 'stands ready to support member states,' but reiterated that abortion remains a matter of national jurisdiction.
West Australian
3 days ago
- West Australian
THE ECONOMIST: How to invest your huge inheritance. Don't make mistakes of Gilded Age with generational wealth
What do you stand to inherit? It still feels like a question from a different age, despite its growing importance today. In 2025 people across the rich world will inherit some $US6t, or around 10 per cent of GDP — a figure that has climbed sharply in recent decades. French bequests have doubled as a share of national output since the 1960s; those in Germany have tripled since the 1970s; Italian inheritances are now worth around 20 per cent of GDP There are two entirely reasonable responses to this. One is to worry about the new inheritocracy harming society: how it could corrode incentives to work, say, or widen inequality and distort the marriage market. The other, if a windfall is coming your way, is to rub your hands in glee and ponder what you ought to do with it. The typical inheritance is closer to the value of a typical home than to a Vanderbilt-style fortune. Even so, a rising number of people are in line for a bonanza. UBS, a bank, reckons that 53 people became billionaires in 2023 by inheriting money; many more will have received amounts in the hundreds of millions. Asset prices have climbed so high in recent decades, and inheritance taxes have fallen so low, that the number of very wealthy scions is growing all the time. Descend from the stratosphere, and a sizeable cohort is set to receive far lower sums that will nevertheless be life-changing. In Britain, for instance, a quarter of 35- to 45-year-olds are expected to inherit more than £280,000 ($586,000). For these lucky people, the experience of the Vanderbilts and their contemporaries offers a cautionary tale. At the turn of the 20th century, America's census recorded about 4,000 millionaires, note Victor Haghani and James White, two wealth managers, in their book, 'The Missing Billionaires'. Suppose a quarter of them had at least $US5m (the richest had hundreds) and had invested it in America's stockmarket. Had they then procreated at the average rate, paid their taxes and spent two per cent of their capital each year, their descendants today would include nearly 16,000 old-money billionaires. In reality, it is a struggle to find a single one who traces their fortune back to the first Gilded Age. That is not down to inflation or the 20th century's wars, but to poor investment and spending decisions. After all, spending 2 per cent of $US5m ($7.68m) in 1900 — that is, $US3.8m in today's money — would not exactly have consigned anyone to penury. The big question for a 21st-century heir is how to avoid the mistakes of those of the past. In other words, how can you enjoy a nice life while ensuring your inheritance lasts for ever? Silver spoons for all Some cheery news is that the question of how to invest, which sounds like the hardest part, need not be solved perfectly. In theory, this would mean finding the blend of risky assets with the best volatility-adjusted return, and comparing it with the 'safe' return on inflation-protected government bonds. You would then solve for an optimal split between the two, which would vary with market conditions. Thankfully, far simpler procedures can produce spectacular results. Our putative 20th-centurymaires just plonked everything in America's stockmarket, and did very well. Today, we know they could have done even better without much more effort. A simple rule-of-thumb known as the 'Merton share' can approximate the optimal split between stocks and inflation-protected government bonds, by comparing their expected returns and volatility. Messrs Haghani and White have calculated the annualised returns on such a strategy since 1900 (using a proxy for inflation-linked bonds for before 1997, when they were first issued). Had the Gilded Age crowd and their descendants invested in this manner, they would have scored an annualised real return of 10 per cent, compared with 6.6 per cent from the all-stock strategy. Remarkably, it would also have been 40 per cent less volatile. That would have produced vastly more old-money billionaires today. The worse news is that deciding how much to spend is trickier than it sounds. Popular rules for drawing down retirement savings, such as spending a largish fixed percentage of the initial value each year, are definitely out. In truth, these are not wise even for pensioners. Suppose you had kept a classic 60/40 split between American stocks and government bonds, starting in 2000, and drawn down 5 per cent of the value of your initial savings a year. You would have run out of money in 2019, despite earning an annualised return of 5.25 per cent, since you would have depleted too much capital in the market's 'down' years. Even if you spent only 4 per cent of the initial value each year — well below the portfolio's return — you would run a high risk of going bust. Simulate many different market outcomes, based on the 60/40 portfolio's expected return and volatility, and the 4 per cent spending rule leads to ruin within three decades about a third of the time. To avoid this trap, the optimal amount to spend each year must be a percentage of the portfolio's value at that point (the 'spending ratio'), not of its initial value. In other words, if you want to take the risk required to generate outsize returns, you must vary your (maximum) spending from year to year. That way, after a bad spell for the markets, you will not deplete too much of the remaining pot, allowing it to recover. Each year you could, for example, spend a proportion of the portfolio's value equal to its annualised expected return. This is similar to the spending rule adopted by university endowments, which aim to solve the same problem. The median outcome is that the fund's value, and hence annual spending, stays roughly constant with time (provided you have not been overly optimistic about your returns). Nice — but hardly enough to start a dynasty. Ideally, you want to increase your portfolio's value, which means spending less to let the returns rack up. The trade-offs here are difficult to parse. You will get pleasure (or, in economists' jargon, 'utility') from spending more today, albeit with diminishing marginal returns as you get more and more profligate. Doing so will also trim your descendants' purchasing power, especially if the portfolio has a large expected return, which you in part forgo by spending now. Yet such returns are inherently uncertain. In any case, it is only human to prefer an immediate pay-off to a delayed one ('time preference'). The solution is to plug these dynamics into a mathematical model, simulate possible paths for financial markets and calculate the utility derived from each for a given level of spending. You can then calculate the expected utility for each rule and pick the one that maximises this. Unsurprisingly, the procedure is hard, and generates results that are sensitive to the inputs. Maybe spend some of your money on an excellent financial adviser. Yet there are straightforward lessons that everyone can absorb. Although greater expected returns allow you to spend more, they do not do so by as much as you might think. With higher returns, the gap between these and the optimal spending ratio widens (since there is more value in sacrificing spending to let the portfolio grow). Higher volatility means lower spending, since it drags on your annualised return. The more reluctant you are to vary year-to-year outlays, the less you can tolerate investing in stocks, since their value fluctuates. The smaller your minimum spending requirement, the more risk you can take, meaning your expected returns, and hence your overall spending, can rise. A more important lesson is that making your inheritance last for ever means spending far less than its expected return. Exactly how much less depends on market conditions and your risk and time preference. But under reasonable assumptions, a near-optimal portfolio might have an expected annualised return of 4.1 per cent and an optimal pre-tax spending ratio of 2.4 per cent per year. Even that is before allowing for how much your family tree might grow, cutting whatever you pass on into smaller chunks. 'People often want to know how much they need to have to give each member of their family's next few generations a modest income,' says Mr Haghani. 'The answer is: a lot more than most anyone thinks.'
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
British parliament votes to end ‘cruel' abortion prosecutions for women
In 2023, Carla Foster received a 28-month prison sentence after she admitted taking abortion pills to induce a miscarriage during the initial COVID lockdown in 2020, when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant. She was released after just one month in custody following a successful appeal. Another case involved Nicola Packer, who was charged after taking the medications mifepristone and misoprostol at about 26 weeks of pregnancy. She denied knowing that she was more than 10 weeks pregnant and was acquitted by a jury. The reform does not extend to medical professionals or anyone else involved in abortions performed outside existing legal frameworks. Nor does it alter the clinical requirements of the 1967 Act, which permits abortions up to 24 weeks with authorisation from two doctors, and after that point only under limited and exceptional circumstances. Not all within the government backed the change. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood opposed the amendment, warning of risks it might introduce. 'I am deeply concerned to see these measures being progressed in the name of women's rights, when the potential physical and mental impacts on women would be so devastating,' she wrote to constituents. 'I oppose extending abortions up until the point of birth beyond the exemptions that currently exist, as doing so would not only be unnecessary but dangerous.' Antoniazzi made clear the measure would not affect healthcare provisions: the clause 'would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting', she said, reiterating that the current time limits and clinical conditions would remain. The UK vote lands at a moment of flux in abortion access across Europe, where legal protections are often undermined by logistical or cultural barriers. Despite most EU countries allowing abortion under certain conditions, many women — an estimated 4500 in 2022 — still travel abroad to access care. Loading The Netherlands received 2762 women from Germany, Poland, Belgium, France, and Ireland in 2022 alone. Spain recorded about 1500 cross-border abortion cases in the same year. Hundreds more travelled to the UK for the same reason. Notably, only two EU member states – Malta and Poland – impose near-total bans. But restrictive time limits, a lack of providers and religious or cultural resistance elsewhere mean that abortion, while legal on paper, is inaccessible in practice. Women in France, Italy, and Croatia, for example, often struggle to access care due to 'conscientious objectors' – doctors who refuse to perform abortions. In some Italian regions, up to 90 per cent of physicians decline to carry out the procedure. Even in France, one-third of the UK-based Abortion Support Network's clients are French, many from rural areas without clinics. A recent survey found the average delay between discovering a pregnancy and accessing an abortion was four weeks – often because of waiting periods, lack of information, or difficulty in securing funds and time off work. A citizen-led initiative titled My Voice, My Choice has gathered more than a million signatures calling on the EU to fund abortion access across borders. But progress has been slow. The EU's health commissioner said the bloc 'stands ready to support member states,' but reiterated that abortion remains a matter of national jurisdiction.
