Page 857 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the context of the costs of running Alexander Maconochie, half the $20 million—that the Liberal Party and the shadow attorney now hold up as shock-horror $20 million of recurrent costs to run Alexander Maconochie—is being spent in New South Wales today and will be spent in New South Wales next year, the year after and the year after if we do not build our own prison. The rest of the $20 million is essentially incorporated in running the worst and most inefficient remand capacity.
Mr Stefaniak: No; you’ve got to have an extra hundred staff, Jon. That is your other 10 million. Ask your corrections people. You’ll have another hundred staff once it’s up.
MR STANHOPE: No, they are currently working in New South Wales. The equation is quite remarkable here. We now have remand staff in corrections running an inefficient, outdated and completely unsatisfactory remand facility. They are staff. We have staff to run Belconnen Remand Centre and we have staff to run Symonston. Because we have to run two campuses, it is incredibly inefficient that we cannot collocate and centralise the service and the provision of remand centres. That will all be moving to Hume. All of those prisoners—who are currently bolstering the economies of New South Wales and the New South Wales communities, and providing employment within New South Wales—will be moved to the ACT. The staff will not, but their salaries will.
The economics of the prison do not get to the issue of the enormous ongoing benefits in relation to the construction. We are talking about a $128 million construction project, the hundreds of jobs—the business. I would be interested if you went and had a yarn to the Master Builders Association. Do not just restrict your advice to the chamber of commerce and Chris Peters. Go and have a word to David Dawes, have a word to Ross Barrett, and have a word to the builders around town. Ask them what they think about your proposal to scrap the single biggest public works program in the history of the ACT. I know what they think about the $128 million in construction, the hundreds of construction jobs and the ongoing economic benefit of a major facility operating in the ACT.
Go and ask the businesses of Hume what they think about the prison. Go and ask those businesses that will benefit from this major institution, housing compulsorily a couple of hundred people who need to be fed, clothed and looked after and who need all the facilities. Where will those services and facilities be provided? Where will the food be sourced? Which businesses will benefit from this major institution within our town? The businesses of the ACT. And you pretend to be the party for business. It is a joke.
I get back to the nub of the question. Of course, the functional review was asked to look at corrections and the corrections facilities. The basis of the question is completely flawed. The functional review has investigated all aspects, without exception, of ACT government service delivery and management. There was not a single area of ACT government service provision that is not being put within the scope of the functional review. Your essential thesis is completely wrong. The functional review was given carte blanche, without restriction, without a single inhibition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .