Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Deputy Speaker, I rise to give my contribution on this motion and add the Greens’ perspective. Unsurprisingly to many of you, notwithstanding many of the points in here which we do not contend with, we will not support the motion.
I first acknowledge the passionate and emotional contributions just made by two members, and I think almost the Leader of the Opposition in terms of his contribution in relation to his footy team. I also want to say at the outset that not getting a Macquarie Point Stadium is not going to cancel local footy at Latrobe, that has happened. The Premier’s experience that he has passionately articulated here happened in the absence of a stadium and the absence of a team. No one here is talking about cancelling local footy. Let us be clear about what we are actually talking about.
In terms of Mr O’Byrne’s contribution, I acknowledge the passion of his constituent, but I could point to a dozen almost daily –
Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Continued from above.
Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, when I was on my feet earlier, talking to this motion, I acknowledged the emotion in the presentations from both the Premier and the member for Franklin who has brought on this motion. However, I said that the benefits the Premier witnessed in the Latrobe Football Club are not going to be taken away if there is not a stadium. There will still be a Latrobe Football Club.
I also make the point that footy is not the only sport that wraps its arms around people, helps people out and gives them a sense of community and purpose. Community sport facilities in Tasmania are woefully underfunded and neglected. We have communities across the state calling out for new facilities, be it in soccer, the new multipurpose facility in my electorate, in New Town Bay, facilitating netball and other ball sports, the Glenorchy pool, basketball in Launceston or the Northern Tasmania Sports Facility Plan. Footy is not the only sport that can give people inspiration and a sense of community. While I appreciate the emotion, I believe it is slightly misguided.
I appreciate the letter Mr O’Byrne read into Hansard and I do not seek to take away from that constituent’s passion and sense of purpose. However, I was making the point before I sat down that there are people writing to us all the time about their challenges, about the fact that they are in incredibly difficult situations and struggling to find housing and support. We are having jobs cut in the family and domestic violence unit, for example. I had a constituent in Ulverstone who was 15 months pregnant and living in her car with her cat. We received a letter back to say that Homes Tasmania acknowledged –
Mr Shelton – Fifteen weeks, not 15 months pregnant.
Mr BAYLEY – Fifteen weeks pregnant, I apologise. Homes Tasmania wrote back to us, acknowledging that situation is completely untenable, but she has been on the waitlist since 2021. That is completely wrong. When the government says it can walk and chew gum at the same time, I honestly wish it could. However, it is clear it cannot. We have a huge apparatus of government pointed at this Macquarie Point stadium, pointed at this single facility. Meanwhile, other critically important facilities and needs of Tasmanians go begging. It is completely unacceptable. We heard horrible situations in the ramping inquiry where people saw three sunrises literally from the ramp in an ambulance. It is clear that spending $1 billion on a stadium at Macquarie Point is not the priority Tasmanians want or deserve.
The Premier confirms a new stadium will not be part of Tassie’s AFL bid. That is the deceit upon which this stadium is built and it goes all the way back to August 2022 in a story that is still on the AFL’s website. It is said – and I heard it said in the debate, that there are lots of challenges and that they are manageable, I contend that it is clear they are not manageable, and that is exactly why the Premier pulled this stadium out of the Project of State Significance (POSS) process.
He not only pulled it out of the POSS process, but fabricated and orchestrated an argument to do it, tearing down the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) at the same time. While the Premier comes in here and points at us for maligning public servants, which we did not do, it is you, Premier, who is on record tearing down the commitment and independence of the Tasmanian Planning Commission, even saying of the TPC publicly:
My view is that they went in with a predetermined view. From my point of view, it was not objective.
That is an atrocious thing to say about the independent planning commission, the panel stood up by virtue of the Premier’s own motion in this place, all because it is clear that if the POSS process was to continue, it would not get a positive recommendation.
I believe the Premier has made a judgement call here that the politics is easier to manage by getting the Labor Party on side, writing a blank cheque, bypassing the planning process, putting up this legislation, which is an absolute travesty, and avoiding a negative recommendation from the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Why else would you go to such lengths to tear down the planning commission, to orchestrate an argument against the planning commission and bypass the POSS process? Minister Abetz aided and abetted this with his allegations of apprehended bias and backing the cooked‑up legal representation.
This was countered by the head of the State Service in a letter to the planning commission just recently, when the planning commission said that no matter what happens with this legislation, if this legislation to approve this stadium goes down, the POSS process continues because it is a legislative process. Despite the minister saying that the Tasmanian Planning Commission has an apprehended bias, despite the Premier telling a national newspaper he believed they have a preconceived view, the head of the State Service says:
Thank you again for the professionalism, expertise and substantial work of the commission on this important project.
It is clear that the case was cooked up.
A big chunk of this motion is anchored by the assertion that for the club to be financially viable, for it to succeed, for it to get the game-day revenue it needs, it needs a Macquarie Point Stadium. However, the Devils’ own submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s report said:
Financial modelling for the football club assumes that while net stadium revenue from the first year of operation of Macquarie Point Stadium will be less than the AFL club average, a sustainable business model can still be established to support competitive football programs.
However, by way of illustration and comparison, were the Macquarie Point Stadium not an option and, instead, the Tasmanian Football Club was required to play at the existing stadium at Ninja Stadium, Bellerive, the club would be approximately $5.4‑$5.9 million worse off per year.
We are having this whole argument about a Macquarie Point Stadium, creating this immense risk to the team itself because of the complexities and toxic nature of the site, which has not been remediated to suit a stadium like this, the fact will compromise our heritage values, all for $5.4‑$5.9 million a year.
The Greens believe the Tasmanian Football Club can and will be successful no matter what. It is clear that Tasmanians have got behind it. It is clear the benefits are starting to flow without a stadium.
We are opposed to the legislation. It is a corruption and perversion of process to be doing this kind of parliamentary approval. We are not going to support the legislation when it comes before us. Regarding this motion, despite accepting some bits in it, we do not support it.
