Ms MARTIN - 1997-02-27
When the Alice Springs Correctional Centre opened last year, I voiced concerns about its cost and the location. In his mid-year report, the Auditor-General has stated firstly that the original design of the prison was not undertaken within the framework of a needs analysis for custodial services in the Territory. The report goes on to say that such an analysis should have been integral. He says secondly that the Territory prison with the largest prisoner capacity is not located in the Territory's highest population centre, and that what he sees as these failures will cause higher operational costs in our prison system. Does the minister accept that the Auditor-General is right and will he admit now that, as a result of appalling management by the Country Liberal Party administration, Territory taxpayers will be paying far more for our prisons?
Page 1988
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's report raised a number of issues. In an historical context, the opposition is again making a marvellous job of looking retrospectively rather than prospectively at the world. It is interesting to note that the member for Fannie Bay failed to mention that the Auditor-General said also that, despite his concerns about procedures, we ended up with a very cost-effective construction project. I have outlined in this House before the relative cost of this prison compared with other similar prisons built around Australia. I will not rehearse those figures yet again.
If we go back over the history, there are things that could perhaps have been done better. However, the bottom line is that the prison is there. The prison was a very cost-effective outcome - much cheaper than comparisons interstate. It is a good outcome, particularly despite ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr HATTON: The comment is probably a fair account of the historical situation. However, measures are now in place to ensure the agency works more closely with the government and the construction agencies. Planning now under way for future needs is being undertaken by an integrated team from relevant agencies, with strategic needs at the forefront of consideration. An approved strategic plan for correctional developments now exists.
It should be noted that reference in the report to the maximum holding capacity of 500 at the new facility refers to optimal conditions and prisoner population make-up. Given management constraints on holding a mixture of high-, maximum-, minimum- and open-security prisoners in the one facility, apart from one another, the operational holding capacity is around 400 prisoners.
Notwithstanding the adverse finding, the concluding comment in the Auditor-General's report should not be overlooked. The Auditor-General acknowledged that the cost of the centre still compares favourably with the costs of recently-constructed prisons elsewhere in Australia. Recent investigations show that, at normal operating level, the per-bed cost of $79 000 is among the lowest among all recent developments of similar, multi-classification prisons anywhere in Australia. These costs range from $90 000 up to $300 000 per bed for maximum-security facilities elsewhere. Members opposite may bleat and can gloat over a statement by the Auditor-General, but they should not ignore his final comments. He said we have quite a good facility and quite a cost-efficient facility.
Page 1989
Page 1988
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's report raised a number of issues. In an historical context, the opposition is again making a marvellous job of looking retrospectively rather than prospectively at the world. It is interesting to note that the member for Fannie Bay failed to mention that the Auditor-General said also that, despite his concerns about procedures, we ended up with a very cost-effective construction project. I have outlined in this House before the relative cost of this prison compared with other similar prisons built around Australia. I will not rehearse those figures yet again.
If we go back over the history, there are things that could perhaps have been done better. However, the bottom line is that the prison is there. The prison was a very cost-effective outcome - much cheaper than comparisons interstate. It is a good outcome, particularly despite ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr HATTON: The comment is probably a fair account of the historical situation. However, measures are now in place to ensure the agency works more closely with the government and the construction agencies. Planning now under way for future needs is being undertaken by an integrated team from relevant agencies, with strategic needs at the forefront of consideration. An approved strategic plan for correctional developments now exists.
It should be noted that reference in the report to the maximum holding capacity of 500 at the new facility refers to optimal conditions and prisoner population make-up. Given management constraints on holding a mixture of high-, maximum-, minimum- and open-security prisoners in the one facility, apart from one another, the operational holding capacity is around 400 prisoners.
Notwithstanding the adverse finding, the concluding comment in the Auditor-General's report should not be overlooked. The Auditor-General acknowledged that the cost of the centre still compares favourably with the costs of recently-constructed prisons elsewhere in Australia. Recent investigations show that, at normal operating level, the per-bed cost of $79 000 is among the lowest among all recent developments of similar, multi-classification prisons anywhere in Australia. These costs range from $90 000 up to $300 000 per bed for maximum-security facilities elsewhere. Members opposite may bleat and can gloat over a statement by the Auditor-General, but they should not ignore his final comments. He said we have quite a good facility and quite a cost-efficient facility.
Page 1989
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016