Mr BAYLEY – Treasurer, a couple of times on Thursday in parliament, you made the point that the site is twice the size of the MCG, and I quote, ‘As I said, in the introductory speech, the site is twice the size of the MCG. The stadium is going to take up 45 per cent of the Macquarie Point site.’ Can you unpack that for us? What data are you using there for the MCG, the MCG is on a site that I understand was originally part of a 10‑acre grant, you know, how do you substantiate that claim?
Mr ABETZ – That was information that I was given in my brief. I don’t know –
Mr HEALEY – Certainly reflecting on the site, on the size of the site, it is an extraordinarily large site. The MCG – I’m not sure about the size of the MCG, but I can say that the site or the land that is in excess of the stadium that is available for redevelopment is the size of two Hobart city blocks. It’s bigger than Salamanca – Salamanca Square and PW1 all put together. It’s bigger than twice the size of Federation Square – including all of the National Gallery of Victoria area.
Mr BAYLEY – Is the TasPorts site part of those calculations?
Mr HEALEY – Yeah, that’s right, because that’s part of the precinct plan.
Mr BAYLEY – But it’s not part of the Mac Point site. The precinct plan is very clear, you delineate the Mac Point site. You delineate the TasRail transit corridor. You delineate the TasPorts’ Macquarie Wharf. I mean, isn’t it a little bit disingenuous to add in TasPorts land and say this is part of it? I mean, it’s going to be a working port; TasPorts are going to make their own decisions about redevelopment of that land.
Mr HEALEY – Through you, minister. No, I don’t believe it’s disingenuous at all. TasPorts are actively engaged with Macquarie Point in working out how they can develop that precinct, so it’s fully integrated, so it has the look and feel of one precinct that extends from the cruise terminal all the way through past the stadium up to Regatta Point for residential development and then potentially even all the way up to Huon Quays. This is an extraordinary area that, as I said, is bigger than two Hobart city blocks –
Mr BAYLEY – Noting, obviously, that no legal document, not the list, not the Macquarie Point development plan identifies that as the Macquarie Point site, but putting that aside –
Mr HEALEY – Can I, just to – the precinct plan absolutely does.
Mr BAYLEY – No, it doesn’t; I have it right here.
Mr HEALEY – The precinct plan absolutely talks about the integrated development across those –
Mr BAYLEY – You have a red line around what’s called the Mac Point site, and you have an orange line around what’s called the TasPorts Macquarie Wharf. They are distinct sites. They have different ownership. I think it’s – but, look, I’ve established what I wanted to understand. What I want to understand now is, the regatta grounds land, earmarked for housing development. It’s still listed on the on the list as NRE land. I note in the Mac Point annual report in terms of land and buildings; it acknowledges that the Royal Engineers Building has been transferred over to Mac Point Development Corporation’s ownership. Can I ask about the status of the NRE land at the regatta stands and, I guess as part of that, if it is to be developed as part of housing, what are the commitments around some of the public facilities there, in terms of boat ramps and wharves and other facilities?
Ms BEACH – Through you minister. It is identified as part of the precinct plan and there’s a process set out in the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act – I think it’s section 53 ‑ that manages the transfer of existing Crown lands to the corporation.
Mr BAYLEY – Has it been transferred though?
Ms BEACH – It’s in the process of that. The area had to be identified and surveyed, so the office of the surveyors has completed that work and the process set out in section 53 requires the approval of the minister responsible for the Crown Lands Act, the Treasurer. The corporation needs to agree and its actioned by the minister. Given the minister is also the Treasurer, we did seek some advice about the minister’s request as to how we could manage that to avoid a potential conflict, and we’re working through that process to nominate a different minister to consider that matter so there is an exchange of two ministers informing that decision.
Mr BAYLEY – That is an important piece of public land. One question is, is Mac Point Development Corporation paying for it, or is it being transferred at no cost, or for a dollar? What’s the remuneration there, and what’s the commitment around the maintenance of access to public facilities?
Ms BEACH – Through you minister. It isn’t a purchase; it is a transfer, so there isn’t a cost. It’s moving from one instrumentality of the Crown to another for the management. In terms of the public facilities, an important part of developing that area is maintaining and improving the public amenities. There are two small jetties and there’s also a small‑vessel ramp there, which is the only central Hobart small‑vessel ramp, so access to that is important. In the design work we’ve been doing in the feasibility around developing housing in that, one of the considerations is not only supporting that area, but also the first level and making sure that remains an activated space so it can’t be used for private use, to make sure that feels like a public space. The residential developments would then start from level one above.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, I want to go back to the TasPorts site. I’m a little alarmed by the flippant nature, including your commentary on the stadium and so forth. I want to check if the redevelopment of the TasPorts wharf, such that it is, is something that government has factored in in relation to repaying the $490 million debt that Macquarie Point Development Corporation would incur. Commercial returns from redeveloping the TasPorts site, which has been argued is part of the site? Is that factored into repaying the debt?
Mr ABETZ – Before asking Ms Beach to respond, I indicate that the government response to the TPC said the MPDC land is not required for the stadium and TasPort’s commercial zone is not required for secure port operations, and not including the existing MACq 01 Hotel, amounts to 59,000 square metres, which is equivalent to the MCG footprint. That is where ‘double the size’ came from, but as you might imagine, I don’t do those measurements, I rely on advice in relation to that and if something is wrong with that, I’m happy to say, but that is where that figure I quoted came from, which was the official response to the MPDC.
Mr BAYLEY – You said, ‘twice the size of the MCG’. Is that what that checks out?
Mr ABETZ – Yes, the vacant land would be 59,000 square metres which is equivalent to the MCG footprint. The exact size of that I don’t know.
Mr BAYLEY – Can we go to the point around the redevelopment of TasPort’s land?
Ms BEACH – The reference to that is looking at the broader precinct and the delivery of the urban renewal outcome. In the precinct plan it sets out that the southern area of TasPorts’ land is designated for both commercial and cruise ship activities, so that area is accessible to the public. To the north is the secure zone, and that is outside of the urban renewal space because it’s a protected space to support the operations of the port. Our work with TasPorts is around how we make sure that boundary to the south isn’t felt and that it’s a continuously planned and coordinated precinct for Tasmanians and visitors to walk through that space.
CHAIR – Ms Johnston?
Mr BAYLEY – Chair, sorry, but the question was really clear – would the redevelopment of that site be part of paying down the $490 million debt that Mac Point would incur?
Mr ABETZ – I can take that on notice.
I think it was Mr Willie who asked about the cost of the roof. On reflection, having taken it on notice, we don’t want to allocate a figure to it, given the construction companies and commerciality of it. That said, I am more than happy for you to have a private discussion about that but on the basis of confidentiality I don’t want to prejudice potential contractual arrangements.
