Mr BAYLEY – Treasurer, $610 million in the Budget for Macquarie Point Development Corporation is a huge amount of money by any measure for an average Tasmanian. $800 million plus for the stadium likewise is also huge. It’s huge in everyone’s minds. I appreciate you’re not the relevant minister overseeing the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, but you are the Treasurer. You would be sitting on the Cabinet subcommittee that oversees the spend.
I wanted to ask your view in relation to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s commercial activities. Do you think they should be consistent with the corporation’s principle objectives and functions? Do you think that any of its commercial activities should be appropriately costed and managed? Do you think that it should be compliant with the government’s competitive neutrality principles? Do you think those three things are reasonable expectations to have of a government‑owned entity spending $600‑plus million? Consistent with this act, appropriately costed and managed and compliant with your own government’s competitive neutrality principles?
Mr FERGUSON – Let’s take this together. I respect the question and the good intention behind it. I recognise that you oppose the project. That is a slightly different way to ask the question which moves into process.
Mr BAYLEY – 100 per cent.
Mr FERGUSON – Please don’t make any assumptions about Cabinet committees. Unless the Premier is prepared to share that with you, it’s not my role to share with you how Cabinet works because I’m sworn to a process there. I invite you to take these questions to the relevant minister who has the direct relation with MPDC.
In broad terms, without wanting to overstep the mark in any way into another minister’s portfolio, as Treasurer, I broadly agree with the direction of your question. I don’t want to walk into traps because government policy and the corporate intent of MPDC can change. If there was a need for certain approaches to take opportunities that exist in the corporate sector to get more private investment into the stadium, we ought to be doing that. Fresh capital is a relief on the budget. I hope we’d agree on that. If there’s fresh private capital that can come into the precinct, I see that as a positive if it’s well‑managed. If it’s well‑managed, and particularly if it leads to –
Mr BAYLEY – Costed and managed.
Mr FERGUSON – You take the long view on these things. We want to deliver our social and economic objectives here. It’s reasonable for the government to tell MPDC what, as its owner, it expects it to perform, and the way in which it should do so. I’m trying not to sidestep the question nor step into a policy area that I don’t have day‑to‑day responsibility for.
Mr SWAIN – I’ll speak in terms of Treasury advice, because I obviously can’t talk to government policy. If there are processes that involve proposals from the private sector for what they may do and they come out of competitive procurement process or other negotiations, I think it would be available to the government to consider whether the current act contemplated all those things. You could also look at other frameworks that we have, so, for example, the arrangements that apply to state‑owned companies. There might be elements that become more relevant. That wouldn’t be unusual as a policy consideration at the time, but it would very much depend on what came out of negotiations or processes. It’s hard to predict.
In terms of competitive neutrality policy, that’s something the state generally supports, so, in terms of Treasury advice, we would be seeking to operate within that framework, particularly if there are further national e-competition policy developments and if the states request of the Commonwealth, which is that any future arrangements are underpinned by contributions to the cost of those reforms is actually honoured, that would probably become an obligation under agreements anyway.
Mr BAYLEY – While I’m hearing you broadly accept that they’re sound principles that should be adopted, in the wake of directing the Macquarie Point Development Corporation to junk the previous development plan for the site and proceed with the stadium, why do you think those principles would need to be edited out of a statement of ministerial expectations? When we’re dealing with such vast amounts of money and complex negotiations, that no longer needs to be consistent with its corporate principles, no longer needs to act appropriately, costed and managed, and it doesn’t have to comply with government’s cost neutrality? That’s exactly what happened.
Mr FERGUSON – With respect, that’s your spin on the scenario but, broadly speaking, the government, in trust for the people of Tasmania, owns the precinct, owns the corporation., is the recipient of federal funds, AFL funds to a much smaller degree, and is responsible for arguing its case for state contribution towards the project. So, it’s a state project. But the vehicle through which it’s been delivered, as you know, is through MPDC, with the policy support and agency support of the Department of State Growth. We’ve had a lot of expertise in delivering major capital projects over the years.
I don’t want to seductively fall for just agreeing with you on this but it is the government’s entity that it owns in trust for the people of Tasmania, and driving a project means driving the corporation as well.
Mr BAYLEY – And setting appropriate standards for it to meet. And that isn’t spin, Treasurer, it’s a statement of fact that those principles were edited out of the ministerial statement of expectations for the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. When we’re dealing with $600 million‑plus, when it’s public funds, and when we can all expect it to go beyond that, abandoning appropriately costed and managed principles is an alarm bell for everyday Tasmanians.
Mr FERGUSON – Again, if I can just pick up the question, we’re driving the project and statements of expectation, ministerial charters do change over time across all sorts of government businesses .
Mr BAYLEY – This looks like a significant winding back of constraint on the corporation, though. This is abandoning some pretty fundamental principles that –
Mr FERGUSON – I wouldn’t necessarily want to agree with you on that either but I don’t have the subject experts to hand today with me at this hearing and I’m not the principal minister here. But many of these principles will persist going into the future. For example, when there’s a procurement there will be principles that do need to be observed.
Mr BAYLEY – They were relevant before the stadium. They have been ditched this time.
