Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, this is urgent and we do need to be suspending Standing Orders so we can debate this motion, because, at the end of the day, this week should have been a circuit breaker when it comes to the push for a stadium at Macquarie Point in Nipaluna/Hobart. The Planning Commission’s report, the draft Integrated Assessment Report, is a damning assessment of the stadium. Not only is it a damning assessment in relation to the budgetary issues; the Leader of the Opposition talked about the health, housing, and cost-of-living crises. This report demonstrates that this stadium is going to add to our debt. We have a debt crisis as well. We all know that. We have debated that at length and we are going to see it again in the budget in May. The draft integrated assessment process makes it really clear that almost $2 billion over the next two years, associated with the capital investment plus losses, is going to add to our debt so much so, it is so significant, that it might impact on our credit rating.
I hear the opposition bang on at length about the risk to our credit rating in terms of debt. But here it is, the Integrated Assessment Report, the panel stood up by the Planning Commission, saying that this is going to add to our debt. There was not a peep out of the opposition in relation to that. Not only is it the debt and the financial issues in relation to what that will do to our health, housing, and education, to our capacity to protect the environment and other desperate investments. This Integrated Assessment Report makes it really clear that it is going to have a significant cost to our city, the function of our city, in relation to the historic heritage of the Sullivans Cove precinct, and in terms of its impact on the Cenotaph. Any other state opposition would stand with veterans and the RSL to defend the oldest state war memorial in the country from the impacts of a development like this. But again, not a peep from the opposition. It is going to wreak havoc when it comes to traffic and it is going to wreak havoc when it comes to pedestrians. Indeed the safety of pedestrians.
This report is damning and that is why we are bringing on and want to talk about this censure motion. It is because the opposition and the opposition leader is running cover for the government. The Premier is talking about circumventing the process that they together agreed on less than 18 months ago. Together, they voted for this process. We are not big fans of the PoSS process. Let me be clear. It abandons existing planning schemes. There is no third party rights of appeal so it is normally a developer-friendly process. This stadium is so bad that it has even categorically failed that process. It is here in black and white. Yes, the government has released some dodgy legal advice this morning. But make no mistake, that is little more than a PR exercise to try to distract from the categoric findings that the Planning Commission has delivered.
We do need to be debating this motion because, at the end of the day, the Labor Party has betrayed even its own people in abrogating its responsibility. Yes, we are spending time talking about you, Mr Winter, and you are talking about us taking up time and not holding the government to account. But the very reason is because you are not holding the government to account. You have written a blank cheque to this government over the stadium.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – You will direct the comments through the Chair. Members on my left will remind themselves of the people who are no longer in the chamber and consider whether they wish to hang out with them.
Mr BAYLEY – The impacts of the stadium are so significant that we need to debate this. Your party went to two elections. Admittedly – and I correct the record from my previous contribution – you did not take the party to the last general election, but you did take them to the Legislative Council elections, both times with a position opposing the stadium. You did not even have the courtesy to wait until the writs were returned from Mr Willie’s old seat of Elwick before changing your stadium position to make it pro-stadium.
But then at least it had some conditions. At least you were going to hold the government to account about their cap on spending the $375 million, and at least you were going to scrutinise the government and the decisions it makes in relation to their impacts on our city. Yet what we saw yesterday, and that is why this is urgent and we need to debate this motion, is that Mr Willie, on behalf of the Labor Party, absolutely walked away from any of those commitments and gave unconditional support for the government to abandon the process and pass special legislation.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of people today writing their submissions to the Tasmanian Planning Commission opposing the stadium, and yet we have a situation where the rug may well get ripped out from under their feet, a situation that absolutely treats them with contempt. That is why, Mr Winter, we should debate this censure motion because it is such a categorical failure.
Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, this is urgent and we do need to be suspending Standing Orders so we can debate this motion, because, at the end of the day, this week should have been a circuit breaker when it comes to the push for a stadium at Macquarie Point in Nipaluna/Hobart. The Planning Commission’s report, the draft Integrated Assessment Report, is a damning assessment of the stadium. Not only is it a damning assessment in relation to the budgetary issues; the Leader of the Opposition talked about the health, housing, and cost-of-living crises. This report demonstrates that this stadium is going to add to our debt. We have a debt crisis as well. We all know that. We have debated that at length and we are going to see it again in the budget in May. The draft integrated assessment process makes it really clear that almost $2 billion over the next two years, associated with the capital investment plus losses, is going to add to our debt so much so, it is so significant, that it might impact on our credit rating.
I hear the opposition bang on at length about the risk to our credit rating in terms of debt. But here it is, the Integrated Assessment Report, the panel stood up by the Planning Commission, saying that this is going to add to our debt. There was not a peep out of the opposition in relation to that. Not only is it the debt and the financial issues in relation to what that will do to our health, housing, and education, to our capacity to protect the environment and other desperate investments. This Integrated Assessment Report makes it really clear that it is going to have a significant cost to our city, the function of our city, in relation to the historic heritage of the Sullivans Cove precinct, and in terms of its impact on the Cenotaph. Any other state opposition would stand with veterans and the RSL to defend the oldest state war memorial in the country from the impacts of a development like this. But again, not a peep from the opposition. It is going to wreak havoc when it comes to traffic and it is going to wreak havoc when it comes to pedestrians. Indeed the safety of pedestrians.
This report is damning and that is why we are bringing on and want to talk about this censure motion. It is because the opposition and the opposition leader is running cover for the government. The Premier is talking about circumventing the process that they together agreed on less than 18 months ago. Together, they voted for this process. We are not big fans of the PoSS process. Let me be clear. It abandons existing planning schemes. There is no third party rights of appeal so it is normally a developer-friendly process. This stadium is so bad that it has even categorically failed that process. It is here in black and white. Yes, the government has released some dodgy legal advice this morning. But make no mistake, that is little more than a PR exercise to try to distract from the categoric findings that the Planning Commission has delivered.
We do need to be debating this motion because, at the end of the day, the Labor Party has betrayed even its own people in abrogating its responsibility. Yes, we are spending time talking about you, Mr Winter, and you are talking about us taking up time and not holding the government to account. But the very reason is because you are not holding the government to account. You have written a blank cheque to this government over the stadium.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – You will direct the comments through the Chair. Members on my left will remind themselves of the people who are no longer in the chamber and consider whether they wish to hang out with them.
Mr BAYLEY – The impacts of the stadium are so significant that we need to debate this. Your party went to two elections. Admittedly – and I correct the record from my previous contribution – you did not take the party to the last general election, but you did take them to the Legislative Council elections, both times with a position opposing the stadium. You did not even have the courtesy to wait until the writs were returned from Mr Willie’s old seat of Elwick before changing your stadium position to make it pro-stadium.
But then at least it had some conditions. At least you were going to hold the government to account about their cap on spending the $375 million, and at least you were going to scrutinise the government and the decisions it makes in relation to their impacts on our city. Yet what we saw yesterday, and that is why this is urgent and we need to debate this motion, is that Mr Willie, on behalf of the Labor Party, absolutely walked away from any of those commitments and gave unconditional support for the government to abandon the process and pass special legislation.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of people today writing their submissions to the Tasmanian Planning Commission opposing the stadium, and yet we have a situation where the rug may well get ripped out from under their feet, a situation that absolutely treats them with contempt. That is why, Mr Winter, we should debate this censure motion because it is such a categorical failure.
