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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 827 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

This "trust me, everything will be all right" approach of the Treasurer has some flaws. This is not the first time this Minister has refused to give us details about issues which are going to cost us millions of dollars. There is a bit of consistency here. If I pay anything to the Treasurer, it is consistency - consistency in doing absolutely nothing and taking an enormous amount of time in doing it.

I remind members about the Treasurer's refusal to give details of the ACTEW/AGL merger. I do not think for one minute that the AGL board would be silly enough to go into this sort of arrangement without having a cost-benefit analysis done. That is a great insult to that company, and I would not want to be part of that. If they can do it, why can't we?

Again, the Treasurer has refused to give us information about that. That is consistent, because he has refused to give us information about the cost-benefit analysis of the prison, which is being considered by a standing committee of which you are a member, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. You would remember, I would hope, it is this same Treasurer who has bandied around figures such as a $100m equalisation payment. Here one day, gone the next. The same thing happened with the cost saving of $4.5m over 20 years for the prison. In the Minister's press release there it was for all to see: "Save $4.5m over 20 years". Yet in his discussion with the committee just the other day he said, "It might not happen". That is exactly what he said about the $100m. Again, he is consistent.

He said that it will cost $35m for a new prison. Who would know? We are yet to see a cost-benefit analysis. Where is it? It is missing. It comes down to a case of whether we can trust this Minister, and I would say "doubtful". This is the same Minister who promised us a government response to a report eight months ago. That was report No. 1. Yet he was sneaky enough to be able to slide out an announcement over Christmas, when people were not concentrating on it, that the prison will be in Symonston. Instead of responding to this chamber, as would have been the good order of the day, he has done what Mr Rugendyke says, and engaged in policy by media statement.

Report No. 4 called for a cost-benefit analysis. We were promised that at the hearing just the other day - and I will quote from it. The chairman asked when the reports were going to be available. Mr Humphries replied:

The committee transcript then reads:

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