Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Has the Valuer-General undertaken an evaluation on the Treasury building, a very significant public asset?
I’ll just remind you, in the process, that this sale of the Treasury building was not taken to an election.
Mr ABETZ – It was, I thought.
Ms O’CONNOR – I don’t think so,
Mr ABETZ – I thought it was part of our election – policy and costings at the last election.
But, as at the 30 June 2024, the Valuer-General advised that the fair value of the land and buildings portfolio was $22.6 million, and I assume that figure applies to the Treasury building here called Treasury Building Complex.
Ms O’CONNOR – And does – I mean, clearly, that valuation must take into account the heritage values within the building, which are highly significant. Can I ask: what’s the sort of threshold here that the government might apply, if you have a bid come in – if it doesn’t meet what was then the value according to the Valuer-General of the Treasury building, not taking into account its public value, what will the government be taking into account in terms of assessing those bids, noting that the words that have been used publicly are ‘repurpose’, not ‘sale’? What’s the scope of what the government could be looking at, and where’s the threshold where you say it’s just not worth it?
Mr ABETZ – Look, again, it’s a hypothetical question –
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s not; it’s an important question.
Mr ABETZ – It depends on the detail of each bid or each request. Some might be offering us a lot more on heritage as opposed to money or something else, and so you have to weigh up all the considerations – and I’m not going to, especially in an open forum where we are considering potential bids or requests for this building, to say, ‘Right, any bid under such-and-such won’t be accepted.’ I don’t want to influence that in any way, shape or form.
Ms O’CONNOR – Can I just explore – is this an exercise in offloading a public asset in order to get sort of a quick hit of money, or is it a genuine testing of the market to see what’s out there?
Mr ABETZ – Look, it’s a genuine testing of the market, and after that, a determination will be made as to whether it’s a reasonable proposition, all things considered.
Ms O’CONNOR – So, the budget papers identify the repurposing – or whatever you want to call it – of the Treasury building as a budget risk aligned with having to find office accommodation presumably for the Department of Treasury and Finance. Has any of that been costed?
Mr SWAIN – Sorry, Chair. That’s why it’s identified as a risk, because that work hasn’t been done. We are recognising that there is potentially a significant cost with that rental. At the moment very simplistically, Treasury occupies a building it owns which has high maintenance costs because it’s a heritage sandstone building that requires more maintenance than a modern building. It is hard to reconfigure or rewire and those sort of things. It doesn’t face the rental cost, so it would be what that net package looks like.
Ms O’CONNOR – Treasurer, if through the registration of interest process, what comes forward does not meet whatever the threshold is that you apply of return to government and better use that protects heritage, is the government open to the possibility of deciding not to sell it?
Mr ABETZ – As I say, I get into trouble.
Ms O’CONNOR – Is it policy to sell the Treasury building?
Mr ABETZ – I get into trouble for saying never say never, but that is realistically the answer. We have to see what all the parameters are of any offer and then make the considerations as alternate premises for Treasury et cetera. All that needs to be weighed up and there are so many imponderables there until we have something firm on the table, but it’s difficult for me to provide you with an answer.
Ms O’CONNOR – Would you describe it as government policy to sell the Treasury building and following the registration of interest process, what kind of public interest test would government apply to its decision making?
Mr ABETZ – The government always applies to everything in the public interest.
Ms O’CONNOR – Except the stadium.
CHAIR – Let’s just let the Treasurer answer in respect to the Treasury building.
Mr ABETZ – If we’re talking public interest, even the Lord Mayor of Hobart’s report told us $179 million economic stimulus within the city of Hobart –
CHAIR – We might need to move on. We’re getting bogged down. I might close this line item off and go to 1.5, which is Government Procurement Services.
Ms O’CONNOR – You’re verbaling the Council. Could we just understand the question about the Treasury building –
CHAIR – No, we’ve moved on.
Ms O’CONNOR – But he didn’t answer it.
CHAIR – Because you threw the stadium in, let’s move on.
Ms O’CONNOR – I see ‑ that gives him the excuse not to answer.
Mr CRAIGIE – On the repurposing website, there is a FAQ section and there is a specific question, does repurpose mean selling the site to a developer? There is a broad answer that repurposing can meet a range of things.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, James. Thank you.
Mr CRAIGIE – I will just state the obvious.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, that’s good to have on the record.
