Mr BAYLEY – We’ve discussed the cost blowouts on the stadium and we’ve discussed the fact that Macquarie Point will need to borrow to meet that expenditure, but there’s also additional expenditure in the Budget for Macquarie Point Development Corporation – $5 million for an equity contribution.
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?
Mr FERGUSON – I accept on face value the premise of the question, but I think we’d have to put some better context on it, because regardless of the ultimate use of the precinct, regardless of the application, the site has to be remediated, so they are sunk costs regardless of the nature of the ultimate development there. We are committed to the stadium project, but remediating the site – I don’t think you can roll that into the cost of the stadium. I’ll ask the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to respond further.
Mr SWAIN – Yes, I think that’s entirely correct, Treasurer. It’s identified on page 123 of budget paper 1 that the $5 million is for rehabilitation. I also note that at a previous time there was a Commonwealth payment to the state in the order of $50 million which was to get the site rehabilitated and ready for use. It has always been intended that that site would be used.
Mr BAYLEY – I guess a follow‑up question for that is, if for some reason you do not get to build the stadium – the Planning Commission rejects it; Tasmanians overwhelmingly reject it; you can’t fund it – what is the government’s plan for that site? Would you leave it vacant for decades to come?
There was obviously a pre-existing agreed master plan for development there. In fact, your government had contracted out to interstate developers to start building and ultimately had to pay those developers out so that they were released from the contract. What would you do with the site? Would it be your intention to develop it going forward?
Mr FERGUSON – Mr Bayley, I respect the question, but I can’t really answer a hypothetical like that. I will answer it in two parts. First of all, like you, I acknowledge that the Tasmanian Planning Commission hold the decision-making power together with the Houses of parliament on a final vote. I acknowledge that and acknowledge that there is a process to be followed.
I am not prepared to engage in a hypothetical about what if a certain scenario emerged, but in any event, I would have to refer you to my colleague, minister Street, who is the minister responsible for MPDC. We’re committed to our project; the Budget supports it. I think most of us hope that it will be built –
Mr BAYLEY – It’s fair to say that it’s always been the government’s intention though to develop that site?
Mr FERGUSON – That is true. That is correct.
Mr BAYLEY – Has anything changed there? Is it your intention to develop that site?
Mr FERGUSON – I do not know if I am falling into a trap or not but yes, it is our intention to develop the site. That has always been the intention. We have a particular vision for how it can be developed, which is there. I don’t see any possibility, as your question suggested, that the site goes undeveloped. At the same time, I have to choose my words carefully so that I show respect to the Planning Commission and future votes of each House.
