Page 4417 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think—I will not commit myself without actually checking—that a range of other options was considered through the cabinet process and the budget process in assessing the various options that presented for funding the prison. One of the options—it was certainly discussed, but I do not know to what extent it is formally reflected in the papers—was the prospect of borrowing. The Treasurer has made the point on many occasions to cabinet and makes the point publicly that, in the event that we, as perhaps the only government in Australia that does not have a history of borrowings, choose to borrow, a project against which one would borrow is a project such as the prison. At this stage—and I do not see anything on the horizon, anything that would cause me to change my opinion—the prison, to the tune of $128 million, is budget funded. That $128 million has been appropriated.
If we chose to borrow, if we felt the need to borrow, which at this stage we do not—
Mr Mulcahy: Why would you suddenly feel the need to borrow?
MR STANHOPE: I was asked a question and I am responding to the question. It was a foolish question. I am responding to the question: have you considered borrowing? Why? In responding to the question: have you considered borrowing, why would I not reflect on the fact that we might have considered borrowing, Mr Mulcahy? Didn’t you listen to the question? Did you know, Mr Mulcahy, as shadow Treasurer, that the prison is fully appropriated to the tune of $128 million? I do not think you did, Mr Mulcahy. It is a sign of your ignorance and your lack of attention to your duties that you did not know that basic fact.
Without breaching the confidentiality of cabinet, from time to time Mr Quinlan does address us about options. If the government ever seriously contemplated or considered borrowing as an option—and it is an option that is presented to a government from time to time in submissions—then the sort of project against which it would be reasonable to borrow is a project such as the prison.
On its completion, the project will claw back from New South Wales payments that we make to them for the accommodation of our prisoners. We are paying somewhere between $16 million and $20 million a year to New South Wales. This is precisely the sort of project that you might borrow against in relation to the return that might be achieved.
MR STEFANIAK: I have a supplementary question. Minister, is it the case that your government is considering using borrowings to fund the prison because of desperation, rather than good financial planning?
MR STANHOPE: No, Mr Stefaniak, the government is not considering that for one second. Except perhaps in that phase before we took the decision to budget fund, the government has not considered borrowing to pay for the prison. Why would we? The money is in the budget, all $128 million of it, as a fantastic signal of the strength of the ACT economy. It is a pity that you keep talking it down. It is a pity that you keep trying to create a sense of crisis around the ACT’s inherent economic strength. This is a great example of your total lack of understanding of the strength of the ACT economy and your total lack of understanding of what has been budgeted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .