Mr BAYLEY question to MINISTER for MACQUARIE POINT URBAN RENEWAL, Mr ABETZ
During Estimates, it was revealed that an agreement with Veolia to deliver a privately‑owned thermal energy plant and network at the stadium site had been abandoned for an as yet unclear alternative power proposal. Answers provided on notice indicated that over $660,000 had already been paid for this development and up to $1.8 million more of reimbursements could be paid to Veolia to not deliver the energy infrastructure scheme. There has already been a multimillion dollar payout to a Melbourne developer to not build houses at Macquarie Point. This is just some of the waste and wanton disregard for taxpayer money that epitomises the stadium project and the blank cheque that your government it appears is willing to offer it. Has Veolia been paid out and if so, how much? Is this and the cost of developing and implementing an alternative energy connection part of the $1.13 billion estimate to construct the stadium?
ANSWER
Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. There are matters of detail in that question which are not readily available to me, or I couldn’t find immediately in my folder. As a result of that, I will take the question and the detail of it on notice and trust that I’ll be able to come back on the adjournment this evening with specific answers.
For those who might be listening in, we should remember that the Greens have opposed the stadium from day one. What I would say to those listening in – I dare say my words will be wasted on the Deputy Leader of the Greens – there has to be a degree of expenditure for the site, irrespective of what the site is going to be used for, so no matter what your ambition is for the Macquarie Point site, there will need to be a new energy source or a ramped up energy source, so you can say that should all be visited upon the stadium. Well, you can do that or say that. What was that great project that the Greens were hoping for?
Members – The Eden Project.
Mr ABETZ – The Eden Project. You know what, I reckon that would have needed a new power supply as well. That would have needed some roadworks around it as well. The idea that you try to lumber every single potential possible cost on the stadium is a bit disingenuous because we all know that no matter what we put the site toward or use the site for, there would have been the need for these upgrades. That is, of course, unless we kept it for another 10 or 20 years as an industrial wasteland without anything else happening on it.
Mr Bayley – You had a plan for it; you paid out a Melbourne developer.
Mr ABETZ – That’s not our ambition. While there will be cluster upgrade energy sources, et cetera, I can tell this House I’m looking forward to the day when Mr Bayley walks through the doors of the new stadium and watches a concert or an AFL match and then wonders, ‘Why on earth did I ever oppose this wonderful proposition?’
Supplementary Question
Mr BAYLEY – I appreciate the minister taking that information on notice and I look forward to his answer. He talked about the degree of expenditure on this site. I would ask him also to come back to the House with the full extent of the additional expenditure on the site, itemised, what is it above the $1.13 billion?
Mr ABETZ – Speaker, I can understand that he would like it. I’m sorry to say I’m going to disappoint because we are currently in an active procurement process and all those extra little bits and pieces are all part and parcel of what is being discussed at the moment. As soon as we start talking about those matters, you might score a good political point somewhere along the way, but the people of Tasmania and their finances would be substantially prejudiced if that sort of information got out, because then the creative tension and the commercial tension with two bids being considered would be denied and, as a result, we won’t get the best possible value for the Tasmanian, Australian taxpayers and the AFL membership.
