• The Grand Prix has given Melbourne and Victoria "enormous international exposure".
  There is no proof at all that the Grand Prix has provided any benefits (for example, increased tourism) from international exposure.

• The Grand Prix provides an annual economic benefit to Victoria of $95.6 million.
  The claimed $95.6 million economic benefit is based on a report by a government consultant after the 1996 race. Since then, overall interest, visitor numbers and attendance have fallen significantly.
  The claimed benefit is a "gross", not a "net", benefit, as it takes no account of the event costs. If the money spent on the Grand Prix had been spent on an alternative project, the benefit could well have been much larger.
  A report by an independent economist (Francis Grey) has shown that the Government's figures are inflated. When questionable sources of economic benefit are removed and alternative investments considered, then the real net benefit reduces to $24 million at most, and may well be zero.

• The Grand Prix provides the Government with tax receipts of $6.8 million.
  The claim of $6.8 million in "tax receipts" is based on a notional estimate provided by a Government consultant, not on actual tax receipts. If the money spent on the Grand Prix had been spent on conventional commercial investments, tax revenue may well have been even higher. The "net" tax receipts from the Grand Prix may actually be zero, or negative.

• The Grand Prix created 2270 full-time/full-time equivalent jobs.
  No proof has been provided to justify this claim. An alternative project may well have provided more, better quality jobs. Only 100 full-time jobs were claimed by Adelaide as a result of its Grand Prix.

• The Australian Grand Prix Corporation provided a "cash subsidy" of $1.8 million for the 1998 event.
  The cash subsidy provided by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation is actually an operating loss for 1988 This "subsidy" is paid by Victorian taxpayers.

What is the Victorian Government doing in the business of car racing when its policy is to privatise public assets? If the GP is such an economic bonanza for industry and commerce, there why aren't there entrepreneurs seeking to turn it into private enterprise? The answer is that no entrepreneur would touch it

• the GP at Albert Park cannot make real money because of the very high costs of using temporary infrastructure;

• the GP cannot survive without sponsorship from the tobacco industry; sooner rather than later, because tobacco is now known to be an addictive lethal drug, the federal Government will ban all outdoor tobacco advertising.