So premier, I'm following up on a document that has just been tabled to the committee which is relating to legal fees for ministers or members of government. We've got here for example legal fees of $68,000 on 17 June this year. Would that be private counsel or legal advice, or would that be a pay for service from Crown law?
Could you please tell the committee how you will make sure the independence of the Tasmanian Community Fund is protected and that its funds are not subject to any minister's interference.
Premier, did you, as the minister responsible for the State Policies and Projects Act have any meetings with the proposed pilitika/Robbins Island Wind Farm developer ASEAN about their planned wharf to Robbins Island across the dunes in contravention of the state coastal policy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect, the stadium is relevant to this output, and I'm going to ask questions about the stadium. Premier, who owns the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and Stadiums Tasmania?
What faith should Tasmanians have that you will sign anything other than dud deals over private investment in the stadium?
Thank you, Chair. Premier, I want to go back to your statements which lack credibility about the stadium only costing Tasmanian taxpayers $375 million. Why aren't the costings for the removal of the historic Goods Shed available, and what is your understanding of what it will cost to move the Goods Shed, and who would carry that cost?
Premier, yesterday in Estimates for the other place, you told my colleague Dr Woodruff and the committee that the state is investing $375 million into the stadium, not one cent more. But that's not true, is it? We've got $145 million that's expected to be carried as debt by Mac Point Development Corporation. There's an extra $55 million that hasn't been accounted for in kitchen, lighting, security, et cetera. There's the northern access road, bus rapid transit, $445 million to make the stadium work. You've got to relocate the goods shed, and we don't know how much that would cost or even if it's possible. Then, of course, the general government sector will carry the ongoing rolling losses of the stadium. It is not true, is it, to say that the state of Tasmania is investing $375 million and not one cent more?
I want to move to the Tasman Bridge. We all got an update from the Premier yesterday in relation to the Tasman Bridge and the acknowledgement that the original proposal was to build wider pathways on both sides of the bridge to support more walking. It's emerged that obviously budget funding and capacity to do those upgrades isn't there because it requires significant structural upgrade. I'm sure you know this from your role as Infrastructure minister.
Do you accept that most ordinary Tasmanians would consider that, given Macquarie Point Development Corporation's sole focus at the moment is delivering the stadium by ministerial declaration or direction, this should be considered a cost that gets ticked up against the stadium and at least makes the state government's contribution $380 million, for example? It is an additional cost? Do you accept that?
It's been established that the stadium will blow out to over $800 million. It's now established that there is a $200 million shortfall. Both the Budget and the development application acknowledged that additional expenditure outside of the forward Estimates will have to be met through short‑term borrowings by Macquarie Point Development Corporation, and it is acknowledged that those liabilities will be transferred with the stadium to Stadiums Tasmania.