Mr BAYLEY – There’s $610 million in the budget for the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal project. We already know, as we’ve discussed here, that stage one of the project, the stadium and a few other bits and pieces is going to cost well over $800 million according to documents and then there’s significant other bits unfunded.
Stage 2 and stage 3 are critically important. These are the bits that the federal government’s $240 million hangs off. We must meet a housing component and we must upgrade wharf 6. Treasury has been in discussions with the Macquarie Point Development Corporation minister, as we have alluded and discussed. Do we know how much stage 2 and stage 3 are going to cost?
Mr FERGUSON – Mr Bayley, I wouldn’t avoid the question, but it would be best if the deputy secretary who sits on the steering committee could be able to answer that as best he can, noting that this is not Treasury’s project. This is a project that has an authorising environment that does include the steering committee on which Treasury sits, but the authorising environment is much more directed through the Department of State Growth, minister for Sport and the MPDC itself.
Mr BAYLEY – I can appreciate that Treasurer, but the scale of the investments here and the scale of the risk as identified in the state Budget is pretty extreme.
Mr FERGUSON – I wouldn’t say extreme.
Mr BAYLEY – I would.
Mr FERGUSON – I know you would, I wouldn’t.
Mr BAYLEY – Most Tasmanians would.
Mr FERGUSON – The state contribution of $375 million is one third of one of the billions that we’re spending in infrastructure. I’ll just make that point.
Mr BAYLEY – But we all know it’s not $375 million.
Mr FERGUSON – I nonetheless respect the question. We’re here to answer your questions and I make the deputy secretary available to add any further insight that he’s able to.
Mr CRAGIE – Thank you, Treasurer. All I can add is that there’s an executed project agreement between the Commonwealth and the state that’s been signed by the relevant ministers that’s publicly available on the Commonwealth website.
The Department of State Growth is responsible for the administration and delivery of that project agreement, not Treasury. I don’t think I can really add anymore.
Mr BAYLEY – What happens if, as expected with the stadium itself, costs blow out so significantly? The state Budget is already in record debt going well out into the forward Estimates. What happens if we can’t get to those stage two and three projects in relation to the $240 million of federal funding?
Mr FERGUSON – I think you’d be inviting me to engage in a hypothetical, but we have a project plan and we have a committed group of people working together to achieve that objective. I respect that you don’t agree with the project and at least to your credit you’ve been consistent about that, but we disagree on this one and the government wants to see it go ahead –
Mr BAYLEY – Tasmanians will be up for the bill, wouldn’t they? The $240 million?
CHAIR – Order.
Mr FERGUSON – I beg your pardon?
Mr BAYLEY – The Tasmanians would end up having to reimburse the Commonwealth for $240 million, would they not, if we didn’t get to the wharf upgrades and the housing?
Mr FERGUSON – I think that there’s a much broader set of factors there, including the fact that the documentation that came with the project commitment’s funds of 240 million from Canberra in itself stipulated that wharf 6 would be underpinned by appropriate commercial agreement-making contributing to either the upfront capital value cost of upgrading wharf 6 or a different model that involves more of a lease type and an amortised model over decades.
I’m going to invite the secretary to respond further, and my closing comment would only be that we’re committed to the project and also making sure that it is financially a good outcome for the state as well.
Mr SWAIN – I can just add a little bit of detail and, again, try not to go too far into other departments’ and ministers’ responsibilities.
The Commonwealth’s interest in that site was around urban development in particular, and the stadium was a mechanism for stimulating greater urban development and, at officer level with the Infrastructure department, they were particularly interested in its location, which is sort of at the centre point of the three main transport routes in and out of Hobart.
The initial agreement that’s been signed still needs to have a lot more detail added to it in subsequent negotiations, but it is about the wider precinct. So, there’s a way to go in terms of that detail and, if you were in a situation for any reason why the stadium couldn’t continue, I suspect that that would lead to further discussions with the Commonwealth.
Mr BAYLEY – And likely repayment by the Tasmanian taxpayer?
