Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3483 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

The core argument against a privately managed prison is the level of accountability or, rather, the perceived lack of accountability. The committee believes that, if the Government were to put in place a strong accountability and monitoring framework, a privately managed prison should not be a problem in the ACT. The Government stated clearly to the committee that it intends the facility to be the most open, transparent and accountable prison system in the country. The committee notes and welcomes this intention and the Government's commitment to provide a legislative framework for monitoring the prison's operator.

The committee has made suggestions about how best to achieve a high degree of accountability, such as no commercial confidentiality from day one, an on-site government monitoring presence, extensive reporting and transparency of information. The committee expects the Government to finalise the details of the accountability arrangements and come back to us with their proposals.

The key recommendations on public and private ownership and management are Nos 27 and 29. No. 27 recommends that a decision on ownership of the prison be deferred until detailed comparative costs are available. We have asked for a cost-benefit analysis which compares the social and economic costs of public and private financing. We have asked for this analysis so that we will know with a degree of certainty whether the Government should place an in-house bid for the management of the prison.

The committee has not accepted the Government's argument that a public prison would necessarily be worse in terms of quality outcomes than a private prison. However, we accept that we may not be able to have a public prison on the grounds of cost and practicality, such as a lack of experience, but it is still up to the Government to substantiate that with hard evidence.

A rigorous cost-benefit analysis which identifies the social costs and benefits of public management should settle the matter. This extra work should not hold up the process as the Government can also immediately call for tenders for the expert consultant project direction team and manage the tender process. I understand that this cost-benefit analysis would take about six weeks, and they have already had a two-week head-start. Accordingly, recommendation No. 29 suggests that the Government proceed with calling for expressions of interest and inviting bids for the financing, design, construction and management of the prison through a transparent competitive tendering process. (Extension of time granted) The final pages of the report contain a comprehensive checklist which covers important aspects of the tender management process.

In my short time here I have been involved in a number of inquiries and I have to say that I think that this is one of the most detailed and thorough reports that I have been involved in. I would like to thank the other members of the committee - Mr Kaine, Mr Hargreaves and Mr Hird - for their input to this report. When members read it, I think that they will be impressed with the work and the recommendations that have come out of it. I would like especially to thank our secretary, Fiona Clapin, for the work that she has done in compiling this report. It has been difficult. We have had to overcome some major hurdles and delays in the receiving of information, but I think the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .