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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3893 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Western Australia completed the Acacia project from start to finish in the time we took to establish the consultancy. While we have had to drag the government kicking and screaming to give us any information at all, the Western Australian government put their request for tender and the contract holus - bolus on the Internet. There was no such thing as commercial - in - confidence in relation to that contract. Right now, if we feel like it, we can get on the Internet and look at the contract for running Acacia prison.

South Australia said that major financial benefits of the private system are linked to public ownership. The believed that as long as the Mount Gambier prison was in public ownership they could use the competing forces of private management and funding to offset one another, remembering that that prison is surrounded by a series of public prisons and therefore competition exists.

South Australia also said that transfer of risk to the private sector is a dangerous concept. That is what the Chief Minister has been holding up as his major reason for wanting to explore private financing and private ownership. Officers in South Australia were emphatic in saying that that state is prepared to carry the financial risk associated with ownership.

For those members who need to refresh their memory, the government's preferred model is known as the BOOT model. "BOOT" stands for "build, own, operate and transfer". That means that the company will own the facility for 20 years and that at the end of that 20 years, when it is paid off, they will give it to us, probably in a state of ill repair, and we will have to cough up to maintain it and to extend its life. It is accepted around the country that the life of a prison is 20 years. Its value at the end of 20 years will be nil, and the company will not want it, because it will cost them money. Why would you want something that was going to cost you money? That is what the South Australians were saying.

I commend the report to members. Its detail about prisons in Australia will add to the previous report the committee has done on this matter. I suggest that the committee did the government's job for it in respect of this project. At least the considerations are on the public record and available for public scrutiny, which is absolutely imperative. This is a very big social leap forward, and we need to take the general public and the community at large with us when we do it.

We still await the cost - benefit analysis. The request for tender documentation says that the consultancy will do a cost - benefit analysis. But I note that the me line is at least nine months away. I find waiting for 21/2 years a little bit too much when it is not necessary. Looking back at my papers, I notice that a cost - benefit analysis was done by Treasury very quickly in preparing for the decision on whether to build a new remand centre or to upgrade the current one. The government have the benefit of that cost - benefit analysis in making its decisions. Treasury officers had the skills to do that. Those same skills have not been employed in this case. I find that unacceptable.

A read of this report should convince the government of its folly about private financing. I urge the government to have a close look at this. Five out of six state jurisdictions have said to us, "Do not go down the road of private financing." We will stand a very real risk of being an island of stupidity in an ocean of sanity.

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