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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2340 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I would be interested to know where the strike teams are going to be based, whether it is at the Winchester or in the regions. I congratulate the minister for spending the windfall on that initiative.

I think I have said enough about my concerns about the financing or otherwise of the prison, but I would like to say just one thing. If it is good enough to have some provision in the budget over a five-year period for roads and a longer period for public housing, why then is it not possible to have some provision in there for the leasing costs, the operational costs or the incentive costs for operators of the public prison a couple of years down the track?

We pay New South Wales to house our prisoners. Out of those payments come the running costs of the prison. Certainly there is a measure in there of the capital cost of operating the prisons in New South Wales, but we know that it will not pay for it all. I found out by a phone call that a 400-bed extension to the Woodford prison in Queensland cost $65 million and that a 550-bed prison in Maryborough is going to cost $97 million. I wonder why it is impossible for the minister to find out how much it is costing to run public prisons in Australia.

If you think you are going to get a 300-bed prison for $30 million, you are in cloud-cuckoo-land and you should be put in a padded cell by yourself. It is absolutely impossible. We are looking at $60 million to $65 million to build it. Now the figure is starting to double, I wonder how attractive it is going to be for the private sector. The New South Wales government, the Queensland government and the Victorian government are all running at a rate of knots away from the private system, particularly as the Victorian Auditor-General and the coroner have been so scathing in their remarks about the private prison.

As I said in my comments on urban services, this budget is not only about the numbers and giving the government the budget to run with for the next year. It is also an expression of confidence in them. If the quality of the cost-benefit analysis provided to our standing committee is any indication of the quality and competence of this government, then heaven help us all. In that case they failed, and I am not going to vote for this line. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your patience and indulgence.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.39): Mr Speaker, since this budget was delivered, I have criticised it in some detail in other places and on other occasions. In one place I have referred it on a number of occasions as a drover's dog budget. On examining this part of the appropriations, that description seems particularly appropriate. As we all know, Mr Speaker, a drover's dog is good at what it does, but it does not know where it is going.

This appropriation covers a good deal of money, but the government does not give the appearance of knowing where it is going. There is no apparent guiding strategy, no drover. Some expenditure is being centralised-for example, the legal aid funding-and other expenditure is going who knows where. The Attorney has his own mini-slush fund-$1.2 million for unexplained crime prevention schemes-and it is quite obvious that the Attorney does not know what to do. Since the draft budget process, which members were told by the government could only juggle existing funds, the government

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