Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, I will require a vote. I move –
That the House orders the government to table before the Adjournment of the House on 10 April 2025 –
- Any correspondence between any government department, agency and/or minister and MinterEllison on or after 31 March 2025.
- Any correspondence between any government department, agency and/or minister and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation relating to legal advice for the Project of State Significance process for the Macquarie Point stadium on or after 31 March 2025;
- Any correspondence between any government department, agency and/or minister and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation relating to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s Draft Integrated Assessment Report for the Macquarie Point stadium on or after 31 March 2025; and
- A copy of advice provided by Crown Law to any government department, agency and/or minister relating to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s Draft Integrated Assessment Report for the Macquarie Point stadium.
This motion is all about transparency. As we go into a phase now of this stadium debacle where we, as members, are going to be asked to vote on the approval of this stadium, without any credible assessment to refer to that has been concluded, this motion is all about transparency.
The stadium is in the wrong place and it comes from the wrong place. Mac Point is completely the wrong place for this development. It comes from the wrong place because it was never supposed to be part of the AFL deal in the first place. The tripartisan agreement that we Greens, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party signed in support of an AFL men’s and women’s team in Tasmania did not include a stadium.
An August 2022 story that is still on the AFL’s news website says, ‘The Premier confirms that a new stadium will not be part of Tassie’s AFL bid.’ The rest is history. Mr Rockliff went on to sign a dud deal with the AFL with no reference to his own Cabinet, no reference or advice from Treasury and no conversation with the community. That dud deal locks us into a stadium. It locks us into a specific site, a specific size, a specific design – that is, with a roof – it locks us into every single dollar of cost overruns and, indeed, penalties for non-delivery.
How is it that someone can agree to something that is a concept that has never been assessed, approved or even had advice on it in relation to how deliverable it is? It is no surprise that trust is so low. Opposition is high to the stadium in the north and the north west, in the mid-to-high 60 per cent across those regions. Opposition is at 55 per cent in the south. It is hardly surprising. Tasmanians do not like being dictated to, being bullied and blackmailed, and they certainly do not like being shafted.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission panel has determined that this stadium will add $1.86 billion of debt to our books in 10 years’ time. Hobart is hardly a democratic, accessible or affordable location for footy fans in the north of the state. At a time when we have crises in health, housing and education, where we cannot even fund proper care for our kids, it is unconscionable to be spending this kind of money on this kind of money on this kind of project when those kind of crises are hitting us. I know all of us know this. We all know the feedback, we all get the receptions. A lot of us are out there door knocking as part of the federal election at the moment. A lot of us are getting emails in our inboxes. The feedback is clear. It is abundantly clear that the community do not like it.
The unilateral prescription of the AFL and the acquiescence of the Premier to this stadium, in this place, in this size creates massive planning, construction and operating challenges. The challenges were really writ large in last week’s draft Integrated Assessment Report from the Tasmanian Planning Commission. The Planning Commission spent a year considering the Macquarie Point stadium. They published draft guidelines, they sought public comment, they published final guidelines, they got the POSS application from the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, they got five lots of additional information from the proponent, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, on request from the Planning Commission Panel. They have had a lot of time to consider this development.
Their analysis is now out for public comment. It is notionally out for public comment unless that process is terminated. The Premier appears now to have said that he will not bring special legislation before this House until 8 May. What that does is that it completely treats people with contempt. Not only does that not guarantee public hearings, but all of those people who are penning their public submissions, their representations on the Planning Commission Report – when you have the Liberal Party and the Labor Party lockstep in coalition wanting to back this in, come what may, how do those people feel? How do you think those thousands of Tasmanians who may be writing their submissions feel about that? It is complete contempt.
Let me quickly run through some of the things that the Macquarie Point Development Corporation were assessed by the Planning Commission and what the Planning Commission actually said. ‘The costs outweigh the benefits.’ They said:
The Panel finds that the costs of the Project are approximately double its estimated benefits.
‘$1.86 billion debt in 10 years and a risk to our credit rating’, I quote:
The additional debt the State would take on to build the Project and to fund its operating losses may trigger a credit rating downgrade. The Panel calculates that by the end of 10 years of operation the additional debt due entirely to the Project build would be approximately $1.86 billion
Impacts on heritage, including the Cenotaph:
The Panel considers that the built form of the stadium would have a significant detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the Cenotaph and the way it is understood and experienced.
…
The Panel considers that both the proposed built form and the use of the stadium building would have a significant detrimental effect on the historical cultural heritage and community values of the Cenotaph.
…
The Panel does not consider that these effects on the Cenotaph, arising from the scale, height, form, bulk, use and proximity of the stadium building, could be resolved by design details applied to the proposed stadium building [okay]
…
Comments from Heritage Tasmania noted that the Cenotaph would be heavily impacted by the proposal and its social and landmark qualities would be greatly diminished.
On toxic pollution, the panel says:
Overall, the Panel finds that the limited understanding of the current contamination conditions of the site, and the consequent uncertainty on contamination and disposal requirements are likely to affect the cost and timeframes of construction.
There are significant amounts of uncertainty flagged there. Analysis and remediation that has been done on the Macquarie Point site was done for the previous development plan. It was not done for a development that includes massive levels of excavation, including for a three‑storey underground car park.
On flooding:
The Panel considers there is likelihood that the reliance on overland flow paths to manage stormwater during flood events may intensify flooding in the nearby area, particularly in the vicinity of the intersections of Davey Street with Hunter and Campbell Streets.
There is one last one I have picked out here, and it is evacuation:
… the Panel considers that the proposed site design for Macquarie Point, as detailed in the Precinct Plan, would not provide sufficient space for the adequate achievement of emergency egress, emergency vehicle movement, general pedestrian movements, and safe and pleasant public spaces.
That is an absolute condemnation of this stadium project. I could go on. There are issues around historic and cultural heritage, issues around traffic, issues around pedestrians, issues around marine pollution of the Derwent River in this clean state.
I will hold it there because I know all of us in this place should have read the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s report. Many of these issues have already been canvassed in Dr Gruen’s report. He said that this project shows all the hallmarks of mismanagement. The costs are understated, the benefits overstated. He was an independent assessor or commentator commissioned by government and his report has been rejected out of hand. That is what the Planning Commission has published in its draft integrated impact assessment. We as the public are being asked to comment on that at the moment.
To the specifics of the motion. In response to the Tasmanian Planning Commission report – which took over a year to conclude to get to this point, in terms of those guidelines and then the assessment – it took the Planning Commission and their multinational legal company just three days to commission legal advice to try to undermine that independent panel and make the case that: ‘Little weight should be given to the Planning Commission.’
The legal advice is shallow, it tackles few legal points of genuine contention, and then it basically reads like a Liberal Party media release. This is purported to be a representation that would be fired into the process along with public submissions. The MPDC had until 8 May to get it in. It was publicly released accompanied by a media release from a proponent. It is very clear that this legal advice is little more than a PR strategy. It is a PR strategy to throw shade on the independent report of the Tasmanian Planning Commission and its findings. That is a real shame. It questions the credibility of their analysis. It is all about giving cover for the Premier – with the support of the Labor Party I might add, who have written a blank cheque ‑ to abandon the POSS process, despite all of its work, and introduce new fast track legislation. It is important to know how this legal advice came about, and the government instructions that sit behind it. That is what this motion is seeking to do.
We want to order the government to produce before tomorrow afternoon, so that we can consider this. We have chosen that time because there is not a lot of information here that needs to be collected. Before the Adjournment tomorrow should be adequate time for the government to produce the correspondence it has had between departments, MinterEllison, Macquarie Point Development Corporation, and the like. I will not go through each of the points. I have read it into the Hansard.
Clearly, this is all about trying to understand the instructions that MinterEllison has received in terms of the construction – let us call it what it is, it is a constructed, confected piece of legal advice. It is all about trying to seek the instructions that sort that legal advice.
Let me remind you about the Tasmanian Planning Commission panel before I go on. They are hardly a bunch of woke lefty NIMBYs. They include the former assistant solicitor‑general who has had a career advising government on matters of law and a former secretary of Tasmania’s Department of Treasury and Finance who should know a thing or two about finance and economics. It also has an experienced planner, an experienced architect and an experienced administrator on there. This is a panel that has significant levels of expertise, but it seems they got it wrong according to this advice.
As it turns out, the very issues which the legal advice that has been commissioned raise, which the Macquarie Point Development Corporation put in its release, and which have then been echoed and replicated in this Chamber, had actually been discussed at length between the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and the Tasmanian Planning Commission, way back in January. Presumably they have been discussed at length across what, December and January?
On 22 January, John Ramsey, the Chairman of the Tasmanian Planning Commission, wrote to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and made it really clear. I will read into the Hansard that he wrote:
I refer to the discussions between the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and TPC staff last week to clarify matters related to the TPC request for further information concerning the Mac Point Multi-Purpose Stadium
One matter raised was the scope of the project and the POSS assessment outlined in the guidelines.
I attach here to a document that outlines the rationale for the Commission’s determination of the scope of the assessment as reflected in the guidelines.
As it turns out, one of the central arguments in the Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s legal advice has already been done to death in conversations between Macquarie Point Development Corporation and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission wrote a very detailed brief to articulate exactly why it is the scope of the project in the guidelines and the assessment is as it is. I am completely convinced that they got it right, because, let us be clear, one of the key arguments of this legal advice is that anything other than the stadium itself – anything other than the actual stadium – should not be assessed. It should not be part of this assessment and therefore the Planning Commission’s erred in law and it is straight outside the boundary of the black line that they have drawn.
I refer us all to the order that passed this House back in October 2023, and it says that:
(4) Nature of Project. The project declared under clause 3 includes, but is not limited to, the development and construction of –
(a) a stadium that is suitable for a range of entertainment, sporting, cultural, corporate and community uses; and
(b) the related infrastructure and services necessary to support the stadium and its operations; and
(c) a public concourse adjacent to the stadium; and
(d) any other facility or thing or necessary or convenient for the implementation of the project.
It is really clear that the order that passed this House, with or without our support, Mr Willie, was clear about what the assessment should contain, and it should actually contain the things that mean that this stadium can operate.
Why on earth would you build a stadium if people cannot get to it or if the buses cannot get to it? It is a logical piece of instructions when it comes to the assessment. I do not recall there being any pushback to that part of the order being debated within this House. It is incredibly sensible.
Then there is the ministerial direction itself, from none other than Premier Rockliff. Premier Rockliff has issued the direction to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and the State Policies and Projects Act and it says:
As part of the integrated assessment, the Commission is to specifically consider the extent to which the project is consistent with and supports the urban renewal of Macquarie Point site as provided in the Mac Point Precinct plan, impacts on surrounding area and uses and that it could generate social, economic and cultural benefits to the region and state of Tasmania.
I want to touch on that very plan. We have deep concerns that the only document that is written into that order that the Macquarie Point Development Corporation needs to be assessed against was the Macquarie Point Precinct plan written by the proponent itself. There’s certain conflict of interest embedded in that. But putting that aside, this is now the law and this is now the process by which this assessment is going.
Let me go to the transport page, page 33 of the Macquarie Point Precinct plan:
Transport Concept. The overall stadium transport concept for the site operation is outlined below an adjacent diagram. Initial analysis has highlighted merit in progressing the development and staged implementation of the Rapid Bus Network and Ferry Network expansion, as well as walking and cycling upgrades in advance of the stadium. [tbc]
Where is the planning, funding and roll out of the Rapid Bus Network? This government has sat on its hand for 11 years now, talked the big game about the rail corridor out to the northern suburbs, and done diddly squat. This is the very plan against which this stadium is going to be assessed and it says that it should be done in advance of the stadium opening.
It has not even been funded, there’s no development application for it. It is just ridiculous. Further, number 2 in the cycling upgrades, let me just pick on that because we are going to hear from the minister himself soon. Remember the transport concept says, ‘… as well as walking and cycling upgrades.’ This is the government that stripped $170,000 promised funding to the Hobart City Council for the Common Street bike lane, part of the cycling network, part of the Greater Hobart Cycling Plan that this very document references. It just does not stack up and that is why there are fundamental failures with the planning for this stadium.
I will just pick one more point out of this, and that is in relation to coaches. It says, ‘Queen’s Domain is the preferred area for drop-off parking and pick-up with walking route available via the Bridge of Remembrance.’ In Estimates last year, I asked the minister, Mr Street, and Ms Beach about the coach parking because I know the Domain pretty well. I know that the government does not own it. I know the Hobart City Council owns it. I know that there is not a lot of spare space there and if you were going to clear a bunch of parking spots for buses, that would probably cut into some really important grassland. I asked: ‘Where are you at with that particular part of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation?’ It was taken on notice and on the 3 October last year, I got this response:
The Queen’s Domain is identified in the Mac Point Precinct Plan as a preferred coach drop-off and pick up location, in acknowledgement of its close walking proximity to the Macquarie Point site. The specific location at the Queen’s Domain has not been explored and will be determined in consideration of and consultation with other users in that area.
The very thing that is in this plan, the only document against which this stadium is to be assessed, as of 3 October last year, they had not even done any work on it. They had not even started a conversation with the Hobart City Council who owns it.
I thought I would check in a couple of weeks ago when the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was in a dialogue with the Chair and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), and I asked for a question to be asked on my behalf, and the question was:
I understand that part of the precinct plan identified a coach pick-up and drop-off at the domain. Can you update the committee on where the discussions with the Hobart City Council are at regarding?
Ms Beach came back and said:
I might need to take that on notice. I am not sure that we have resolved the specific coach drop-off. We do have the event plaza, the everyday bus drop‑off. I think we have not yet resolved the coach specific drop-off.
That was about two weeks ago. Mr Willie, can you confirm, the last PAC meeting when you had MPDC there and at that point, even though it is after the submission of their POSS application, they still had not done any work on a fundamental part of the Mac Point Development Plan. This is the only plan against which they are going to be assessed. This POSS application is incomplete. It is self-evident that it is utterly incomplete, and this legal advice, commissioned by a multinational legal firm, is little more than a PR exercise to muddy the waters and to create a smokescreen behind which the Premier can move special legislation that cuts out public hearing, treats the community with contempt, ignores the expertise of the Planning Commission, and rubber stamps the stadium come what may. It is really obvious why.
It is because the stadium has so many problems that no amount of tinkering and no amount of design amendment can fix. It just simply cannot be fixed because it is the wrong development in the wrong place, and that is why we need this information. That is why we need to know what sits behind the legal advice that has been produced and released to the public by the Macquarie Point Development Corporation.
We need to know about the discussions and the conversations that informed that advice. We need transparency on this issue because it is the least that this House deserves as we go into the space where we are going to be considering special legislation, that is really clear, and it is the least the public deserve as they get cut out of the planning process for this stadium.
No one in this place, as far as I am aware, is a planning expert, and that is why we need to see the substance that sits behind this legal advice. It is little more than PR.
We have a good track record of transparency in this place, and we have collectively ordered the government to produce documents on other issues in the past. In May 2023, back when Labor opposed the stadium, this House passed quite a similar motion. Then-Labor leader, Rebecca White, moved an order for the Premier to table the unredacted copies of and I quote:
(a) Agreements and any associated documents pertaining to the deal to secure a Tasmanian AFL license; and
(b) Advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance pertaining to the development of a new stadium in Hobart.
Of course, that AFL licence, that dud deal, was ultimately tabled and it was ultimately released to the public, and it was illuminating regarding the commitments that Tasmania and the Premier had signed us up to for the stadium: every dollar of cost overruns, a whole bunch of penalties for delays and the like. Unfortunately, advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance pertaining to the development of a new stadium in Hobart was not forthcoming because there was no advice. That brings eternal shame to this government and the Premier.
All this was done in the name of transparency, and the Greens wholeheartedly support it because we are in the business of transparency, of representing the community and of getting this kind of information put on the public record.
On the Spirits, in November last year, the now opposition leader, Mr Winter, successfully moved an order for the Premier to table –
(a) A list of local content spending to date for the new Spirits and the total value of those purchases; and
(b) An unredacted copy of the 2015 Treasury review of the potential merging of TasPorts and Tasmania Rail.
Therefore, it is within the power of this House to order the disclosure of these kinds of documents. It is within the power of the Labor Party to support transparency measures like the ordering of these kinds of documents. It is in the public interest, it is in our collective interest as members to get this information so that we can do our job properly. It is clear we are going to be asked to pass special fast-track legislation to approve the stadium despite the manifest issues identified by the planning experts, despite the risk to our city, our people and the environment, and despite the big risk to the state’s long-term finances.
We are going to be asked to pass this legislation for a stadium and, at the end of the day, disregard this kind of detailed information from the planning commission based on flimsy, so‑called legal advice from a multinational company that was cooked up in a matter of days. The least we can do is inform ourselves about the genesis of this advice and the conversations that commissioned it. We found out from Mr Abetz that taxpayers are paying this firm $3.3 million. I am happy to be stand corrected, minister, but according to your answer last night, we have already paid this firm $600,000 and we are on the hook for another $2.7 million for legal advice. I can only assume it is this firm because this is the firm that has been contracted by Crown Law.
Taxpayers are paying $3.3 million for this firm to be part of the process. They have lobbed a bomb into the process, blowing up the planning commission, despite its expertise, despite the fact that this House less than two years ago entrusted the TPC with the process. They have lobbed a bomb simply because they know the stadium will never get approval because the problems associated with it are so profound that they cannot be fixed. The least the government can do is afford the taxpayer, who will pay $3.3 million for this advice, some transparency about the instructions it gave give this firm in order to publish this kind of PR cover for the Premier to move special fast-track legislation to approve a stadium that Tasmanians do not want, do not need and cannot afford.
I remind the House that we are in a cost‑of-living crisis, as well as other crises. Our health system is failing. We cannot house the people that need housing, when housing is a human right. We have an ever-growing public housing wait list and people are waiting longer. We have an education system with some of the worst results in the country and we have a child support system that is straining at the seams and massively underfunded. Meanwhile, our community services organisations know they are not going to get the funding they have put in their submissions for the coming budget round.
We know there are many significant problems with this stadium. The experts at the planning commission have had an initial go at it and identified a raft of different problems. We know people are out there in the community currently penning their submissions to this process in the knowledge that they will never get read by the people who are actually going to make the decision. It is not like every member in this House is reading every email they get from constituents, so I doubt members will read the representations the public send in.
That is why it is important that we order the government to table the information that is the genesis of this legal advice. It is in the interest of transparency. It is in the interests of knowing what is going on. It is in the interest of informing us all as we come back into this place at some time in the future to give a defining vote on the future of this problematic proposal.
