Mr. McGowan questions the Treasurer about a $42 million debt on the Osprey Village project, a partially occupied worker accommodation camp. The Treasurer defends the project as necessary for providing low-cost housing in a high-risk market.

AnsweredQoN 173Legislative Assembly
Asked
17 March 2015
Portfolio
Treasurer

QuestionView source ↗

OSPREY
VILLAGE — FLEETWOOD CORPORATION
173. Mr M. McGOWAN to the
Treasurer:
I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, how
can it be a good deal for the taxpayers of Western Australia for the government
to be left with a $42 million-plus debt, or liability, on this project for a camp,
or a village, that is only two-thirds full?

AnswerView source ↗

Again, one of the reasons the Department of Housing enters
into those deals is that they are not fully commercial, and it has to do that
particularly up north because the housing market is tied to the commodity
market; there is a large amount of risk entailed. But the intent was that for
working-class people to be able to live in the area and work in the area and
survive in the area, the Department of Housing and others entered into
arrangements with Fleetwood to provide low-cost housing—like we are
doing across the metro area. We have built over 4 000 low-cost housing units
throughout the state, largely in the metro area, and they enter into it and
they take risks in a whole variety of ways—that is, sometimes with land
and sometimes buying the guaranteed value of a house. This time it did that,
and, yes, the downturn has hit the Osprey market, and it is covered with risk—that
is called ''where it is in'' risk. But I tell members what, if we
stop those types of projects, there will be no low-cost housing throughout the
state, including in the area of Rockingham.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more