Mr HIGGINS - 2012-11-29
The minister has told us that the $495m cost for the Darwin correctional facility in the last budget papers is wrong by $126m. We have been told the quarterly instalments of $15.1m, or $60.4m a year, will have to be paid for the next 30 years commencing in October 2014. Does this deal also stand up to scrutiny as being in the best interests of Territorians?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the member for Daly for pursuing this matter with me because he takes an interest in public expenditure. Where I finished off in my last answer was that this was a $1.8bn project in today’s dollar terms.
The part that strikes me as being interesting is: why would we be paying $60m a year on a $621m arrangement? When you start to dig into these arrangements you can figure out what our repayments and the interest rate on those repayments are. In the normal marketplace - I checked this morning on the Commonwealth Bank website - you can get a house loan at a fixed interest rate of less than 6%. If you are a government going into the marketplace borrowing a large amount of money you can probably scrape some interest away at maybe 4% or 4.5%.
The question I have for the former Treasurer and the former minister for Corrections is: why are we paying 8.5% on this arrangement? What sort of arrangement do we have in place …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Auditor-General’s most recent report goes through this.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are now paying 8.5% on this arrangement. In the current marketplace, why on earth would we be paying that much? What has gone wrong with the arrangements around this prison? How else could we get from a promise of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, it will not be a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: How else can we get from $495m to $1.8bn in today’s dollar terms? Because we are paying a bucket load in interest.
I refer members to my response to the last question I received, ‘We were trying to save $51m’. Well, hell, this is the dumbest way I have ever seen of saving $51m.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the member for Daly for pursuing this matter with me because he takes an interest in public expenditure. Where I finished off in my last answer was that this was a $1.8bn project in today’s dollar terms.
The part that strikes me as being interesting is: why would we be paying $60m a year on a $621m arrangement? When you start to dig into these arrangements you can figure out what our repayments and the interest rate on those repayments are. In the normal marketplace - I checked this morning on the Commonwealth Bank website - you can get a house loan at a fixed interest rate of less than 6%. If you are a government going into the marketplace borrowing a large amount of money you can probably scrape some interest away at maybe 4% or 4.5%.
The question I have for the former Treasurer and the former minister for Corrections is: why are we paying 8.5% on this arrangement? What sort of arrangement do we have in place …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Auditor-General’s most recent report goes through this.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are now paying 8.5% on this arrangement. In the current marketplace, why on earth would we be paying that much? What has gone wrong with the arrangements around this prison? How else could we get from a promise of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, it will not be a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: How else can we get from $495m to $1.8bn in today’s dollar terms? Because we are paying a bucket load in interest.
I refer members to my response to the last question I received, ‘We were trying to save $51m’. Well, hell, this is the dumbest way I have ever seen of saving $51m.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016