Mr BAYLEY question to TREASURER, Mr ABETZ
Treasury’s Pre‑Election Financial Outlook (PEFO) has identified the significant risk to the already‑struggling budget from building a stadium. Your government has consistently claimed that the federal government’s $240 million Macquarie Point urban redevelopment contribution will be for the stadium, but the agreement doesn’t even mention a stadium. Instead, it explicitly requires affordable and key worker housing. The PEFO says:
To the extent that the Australian Government funding is required to address these matters, it would not be available to fund the construction of the stadium. The state will need to fund any gap, and this represents an unfunded budget risk.
Treasurer, your government agreed to deliver a finalised housing plan to the feds by June 2025. Have you done this? If so, can you table it in this House today? What commitments have you received from the Federal Government that the entirety of its $240 million contribution can fund construction of the stadium, or will Tasmanians be saddled with another stadium cost blow out?
The SPEAKER – The member’s time for asking the question has expired. The Treasurer doesn’t have to answer the last part of that question that was after the time.
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, along with the Greens, are well known for being opposed to the stadium, and they nod their head in agreement with that, so at least we have that agreed between us. As a result, every single question and move that the Greens, with respect, make in this House is all about trying to criticise the stadium, as is their right, and in trying to ensure that it doesn’t occur.
As I understand it, the Premier and the Prime Minister had discussed this. I will stand corrected on this, but my recollection is that the Prime Minister indicated on a recent visit that the $240 million was for the development of the precinct and the federal government was absolutely committed. I stress ‘federal Labor government’, so we have bipartisan agreement now, not only in this House but also federally, in relation to the development of the precinct.
The PEFO provided by Treasury is there for all to see, read and make comment on. It is appropriate that Treasury provides such information but, as I’ve said previously in this place, while Treasury and other sources can provide advice, at the end of the day, it is the government and this parliament that decides. We can get advice, they can provide the risks and concerns, but at the end of the day it is the democratically elected people in this place that need to make the decisions for the future of the state. I can’t recall any at this stage, but I’m sure that there have been other projects where Treasury may have expressed concerns about risk or whatever; nevertheless, they’ve proceeded.
We have had varying views in relation to the financial viability of a whole host of issues. Men and women of economics have disagreed in relation to the return the stadium is going to provide. You can pick Dr Nicholas Gruen, KPMG or the Hobart City Council’s economic analysis, to which the Lord Mayor said, ‘Discard that, ignore that, because we’re so supportive of the stadium’ – over $170 million worth of economic stimulus just for the Hobart City Council area. Men and women of economics will disagree. It’s not an exact science.
The SPEAKER – The Treasurer’s time for answering the question has expired.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Mr BAYLEY – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Mr BAYLEY – The Treasurer confirmed that in the conversations with the PM, the $240 million was for the precinct. That’s exactly what I said in the question. That’s what the agreement says. The real question was, has the federal government given a commitment that the entirety of the $240 million can be spent on the stadium?
The other part of the question stands: Have you delivered a finalised housing plan, as agreed by June 2025? If so, can you table it in this House today?
The SPEAKER – That does refer to the original question, Treasurer.
Mr ABETZ – Honourable Speaker, part of my role, not only as Treasurer but as the Minister for the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal task – if I’ve got that right – I’m still battling with the title you’ve given me in relation to that, Premier. It deals with the totality of the precinct. As I understand the Prime Minister’s wording, it was in relation to the precinct, but we see the development of the stadium as being fundamental to the development of the precinct. It will be, if you like, the anchor tenant the stadium will be the anchor development for the totality of the precinct.
In relation to the housing plan, I will need to get back in touch with the honourable member and provide that information.
