Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I thank the member for Clark, Mr Willie, for bringing this motion forward. We are strong supporters of scrutiny and now with a role on the Public Accounts Committee – notwithstanding your opposition –
Mr O’Byrne – What role do you have on the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr BAYLEY – As of yesterday, or whenever it was passed, we have a role on the Public Accounts Committee. We look forward to scrutinising the development through this.
Mr Willie – It has to get through the upper House first. A bit presumptuous.
Mr BAYLEY – Holding the government to account is really important, but I do make the point that it is very difficult to hold anyone to account when you write them a blank cheque. It is really difficult when you’re giving them a blank cheque to go ahead against all the expert advice.
We heard from a raft of people, including the Leader of the House about his ‘road to Damascus’ moment and how he made an objective analysis of the stadium and why it went from ‘sitting on the fence’ to ‘good’. Really, the only real analysis, the only professional analysis, the only credible analysis we have around this stadium is the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s report, which as we know, has fundamentally panned it.
Mr Willie – You voted against the establishment of it.
Mr BAYLEY – We voted against this, yes, Mr Willie, because it throws out the planning scheme. Irrespective of that, the Tasmanian Planning Commission has referenced the planning scheme and referenced the long list of principles and consultations that got us to the place where there are planning provisions in place, things to protect – the Cenotaph, Mr Mitchell. I am sure you support our veterans and would like to support their aspirations.
When it comes to holding people to account, you can’t do that when there’s been a blank cheque written. Yes, you can support public education, you can support the Commission of Inquiry, but they are in the public good. No‑one denies that they are in the public good. Our scrutiny is all about how you efficiently use the funds to get the best outcome. What we are talking about here is a development that the Planning Commission, charged by this parliament to assess the stadium, has said will not deliver a public good. In fact, it will say it will come at a cost to the state, to our economy, to our wellbeing. It will be a cost‑of‑living expense.
In that space, it’s really difficult to scrutinise the development when it has already been passed. The time for scrutiny is now, through this Planning Commission report. That is the point here.
The Spirits, well, kudos to the former Leader of the Opposition for relentlessly pursuing the Spirits. That didn’t stop the Spirits being two years late. That didn’t stop the hundreds of millions of dollars of impact on the Tasmanian economy. Oversight, retrospective oversight, is really playing catch‑up at the end of the day. It uncovered stuff‑ups that we know are there, and what this stadium is, as Nicholas Gruen has said, is mismanagement in the making. It has all the hallmarks of mismanagement, and what we’re going to try and do here, through the Public Accounts Committee, is manage the mismanagement.
Whether it be the bus mall, whether it be the northern prison. Yes, they were ideas that this government floated that disappeared into the ether, but they were bad ideas in the first place, bad ideas that ultimately didn’t see the light of day.
The northern corridor – tumbleweeds, yes, tumbleweed, but we’ve seen no action from this government on that northern corridor, no action in relation to buses or light rail or anything. It’s hard to see how, when this development gets up, when we burden ourselves with the level of debt that’s coming, that we’re going to actually see any movement there at all.
Through scrutiny, we absolutely need to make sure. We will support this motion. We will be part of the Public Accounts Committee and we will engage in this process, but we have to do the scrutiny now. We have to do the scrutiny before we get into that space.
Now, there’s been much made of the AFL. The AFL needs two more teams. If the AFL gets two more teams in the competition, they’ll be able to play one more game every round, every week, and Tassie’s well placed for that. We don’t accept that no stadium, there won’t be a team. We don’t accept that you can’t –
Mr O’Byrne – It’s not about the roster. It’s about the business case.
Mr BAYLEY – Well, so long as Labor and Liberal are in lockstep giving support for this stadium, why would the AFL shift its position? Why would the AFL renegotiate a deal that they never had the right to impose in the first place? This report from the Planning Commission gave the Labor Party everything they needed to change their position again to protect the economy of Tasmania going forward, to protect the city of Hobart and the function of the city of Hobart. There are the values of the Cenotaph, the values of the heritage precinct. Change their position and force the AFL into a position where they need to renegotiate, because they need Tasmania, really, because they want the two more teams so they can play an extra game each year.
Plenty of people support the footy teams, Mr Willie. Plenty of people have children that support the footy team, but as well, plenty of people oppose it. If you are homeless on the Domain, literally overlooking that site, you are going to ask the question, why are we spending this money on this kind of development and not on housing? Not on the housing, not on the shelters that we need. There are 5200 people on the housing wait list. Community service organisations need support and need additional investment. We need the health facilities; we need the education facilities.
Tasmania, yes, there’s an issue around Tasmania having the facilities that other states and other cities have, but we’re not other states and other cities. We’ve got an economy that’s seriously challenged. We’ve got 500,000 people. Adelaide’s a city of 1.1 million people. Perth even bigger again. We suffer from this, that’s Tasmania’s greatest fate. Whether it’s the pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, whether it’s a stadium at Hobart, you know, we don’t necessarily need to have exactly what everyone else has had. We have two stadiums in this state where we play football, and it’s abundantly clear that we can continue to play there into the future.
The planning commission has been abundantly clear about this development and urban renewal. The Leader of the House said that this is a development that represents urban renewal, but the panel has been clear, saying:
The panel considers that the project will not support or promote integrated urban renewal of the Mac Point site.
That throws into questions a whole range of issues, including the federal funding. There have been so many red flags raised in relation to this development, whether it be Gruen, the planning commission or Treasury. Retrospective scrutiny simply does not cut it. What we need is proper scrutiny now so that we can make a well-informed decision. If you are not going to accept the advice of the planning commission, if you think they got it wrong, then it is incumbent upon members of this House to set up a committee where you can scrutinise and ask for the evidence, where you can write your own report on why this stadium is a good or bad thing. That is why we want to move an amendment to this.
Honourable Speaker, I move –
That the motion be amended by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph (a).
whether or not the project represents value for money for the Tasmanian taxpayer;
the costs, benefits, disbenefits and risks of the project; and
whether or not the Macquarie Point Stadium should be constructed.
The reason we need to do that is because retrospective scrutiny through the Public Accounts Committee is simply not good enough. If you are not going to accept the recommendations of the planning commission to refuse approval, it is incumbent upon you to support this amendment so that the Public Accounts Committee do it.
The planning commission was not asked the question, ‘Can you build this?’, as the Premier and the Leader of the House said. There is a cheer squad there, but it did not say, ‘We cannot build it’. It was not asked that question. It was asked, ‘Should we build it?’ and it was unequivocal that you should not build this stadium.
There have been so many red flags along the way. This has been a long and torturous journey when it comes to this stadium. Nicholas Gruen said this stadium has all the hallmarks of mismanagement. He said it will cost over a billion dollars. This is almost a year ago. He said the costs are significantly understated, and the benefits are overstated. He said the government’s ‘$375 million and not one red cent more’ commitment could not be met. He said it was the wrong site, and he said ignoring the costs, including the interest paid on additional borrowings, would be detrimental. He was also sceptical about the public-private partnerships.
Professor Gruen was thanked and then ignored. However, his analysis has largely checked out. The planning commission has done its own analysis and that has largely checked out. On the day the planning commission report was released, the Premier accepted that the costs had blown out to $1.13 billion. The public-private partnerships have been abandoned because no one in their right mind in the private sector would go anywhere near this development. The $375 million commitment cannot be met.
It is clear that Tasmanian taxpayers are on the hook for the overwhelming majority of this stadium and every single dollar of cost overruns – and there will be cost overruns. We are up to the fourth one now. This started as a $715 million project, then it jumped to $775 million, then it went to $945 million and then last week, on the day of the planning commission’s report, the Premier admitted that is now up to $1.13 billion.
The planning commission report said the project’s benefits to costs is less than 50 cents for every dollar. That was based on the original $945,000 cost, not the $1.1 billion cost, and there are more costs again that they have added to it.
It is not just the financial costs. There are significant impacts to our city as well. One of the most shocking things in relation to this whole debate has been the utter disregard for the view of the RSL and the values of Cenotaph. I know that most members who are going to support this development hold some deep shame in your heart over that, because all of us – you scoff, at that, do you, Leader?
Mr Abetz – At your assertion.
Mr BAYLEY – The RSL has been clear in its rejection of this since day one. They knew that this would have a significant impact on the Cenotaph. They received platitudes and reassurances from the government that it wouldn’t happen, and yet we know it will because the stadium just kept growing and the impacts just keep loading up, including the heritage impacts.
The planning commission found the proponent is essentially an unreliable witness when it came to its cost estimates. The planning commission said:
The proponent’s core construction cost estimate of $945 million is an updated estimate on the September 2024 estimate of $775 million, and it states that this cost now includes the commercial items previously assumed to be funded by private investors. It does not include any additional allowances for unit cost escalation or contingencies that were included in the September 2024 estimate. In this sense, it does not represent a revised number based on general cost increases.
The previous estimate of $775 million has been described by the proponent as ‘concept stage estimate’. There is substantial evidence that final costs are likely to be significantly greater than the concept design stage costs, as has particularly been the case in recent years for major public construction projects, both in Australia and overseas.
This is one of the reasons why this amendment is important. The Public Accounts Committee should be looking at whether or not the project represents value for money for the Tasmanian taxpayer, the cost benefits, disbenefits and risks, and whether or not it should be constructed.
We have been told we can’t have full disclosure of the estimated costs of this development because of things like commercial-in-confidence and that if the government starts signalling the overall costs, the construction tenderers will have a price to aim at. However, the Public Accounts Committee can take some of this evidence in camera. That is a reason why the Public Accounts Committee needs to look at this closely and needs to take some of the work of planning commission. If this House is going to reject the work of the planning commission and pass this project irrespective, it should play some role in looking at whether the project represents value for money and the costs, benefits, disbenefits, et cetera.
We need to remember that the project, as it stands at the moment, is still only 70 per cent designed and risk has been significantly identified across this whole project; be it the roof, the contaminated site or the fact that it is only 70 per cent designed.
The planning commission found that there is optimism bias in the figures of the proponent, saying:
The panel considers there is ‘optimism bias’ in the Proponent’s assumptions on the cost of the stadium and associated infrastructure, the estimated event attendance, and the economic benefits flowing from the project. Furthermore, there is some uncertainty on the net amount of Commonwealth funds available for the stadium and the level of new AFL investment in Tasmania.
That is also something the Treasury has raised. The Treasury identified that the $240 million the federal government has promised for this development is for urban renewal and must include housing. To the extent that the project is not urban renewal, which is the finding of the planning commission, and to the point where housing is not part of this development, there is a question mark over that $240 million. Treasury has explicitly said that the Australian government has agreed to contribute $240 million towards urban renewal at Macquarie Point. The project agreement also includes references to affordable and key worker housing. To the extent that the Australian government funding is required to address these matters, it will not be available to fund the construction of the stadium. The state will need to fund any gap and this represents an unfunded budget risk.
It is significant, and the Public Accounts Committee’s job is to scrutinise closely and to inform decisions. It’s not just to try to manage the mismanagement because let’s be really clear, it is abundantly clear from the red flags that have been flown from Prof Gruen, from the Treasury and now, really clearly, from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, that this is a project that should not be built. This is a project that’s going to cost every single Tasmanian household. It’s going to cost people for generations to come and it’s a project that simply should not be built.
For the Public Accounts Committee to do a proper job of scrutinising this project, it absolutely needs to look at these other issues that we contain within this amendment because if we approve this development, if the parliament offers and approves a planning permit that’s one thing, but then going on to build a development is another. Everybody knows that there are planning approvals and there are plenty of developments that get approved at the planning stage but then there is more due diligence done by the proponent, there’s more financial analysis and ultimately, they may choose not to make a financial investment decision. This stadium should be no different. If you’re going to ignore the expert advice, at least do the due diligence yourselves in the Public Accounts Committee.
Time expired.
Amendment negatived.
Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, in acknowledging losing that vote, it is a shame on everyone who voted against it, to be honest, because if you think the Spirit saga was a stuff-up and if you think the Spirits was a mistake and has been mismanaged, then this let me predict something: I think this stadium is going to be that on steroids. It really is because the red flags have been writ large by expert after expert. Whether it be Nicholas Gruen, an economist, whether it be the Planning Commission, or whether it be Treasury, they have identified significant risks that you are going to ignore and you are condemning future generations to decades worth of debt and you are condemning Tasmanians to either tax increases or service cuts.
There is still so much to play out when it comes to this development and I will leave you with my last 50-odd seconds with some information from the Treasury. This is the kind of information that the Public Accounts Committee could get either in camera or on the record. It says that notwithstanding the current cost estimate of $945 million, blown out already for the Macquarie Point multiple purpose stadium, ‘the actual cost of construction of the stadium will not be known until the project is put to tender. A range of issues could further impact the cost of the stadium, including a tight construction market, the bespoke nature of the roof, the cost of related projects to support the stadium not included in the $945 million,’ so this is a project that will blow out. We will participate, hopefully, in the context of the Public Accounts Committee, and yes, there can be things to be done to hold the government to account, but ultimately, it’s holding them to account to a very, very bad decision.
Time expired.
