Ms BURNET (Clark) – Thank you, honourable Speaker. I also rise to speak on this notice of motion from Dr Woodruff in relation to scrutiny and how important it is for us to do our role in this House effectively. To be effective, we need as much information before us, but when we have this bill for the Macquarie Point Stadium, or the consultation draft, that is out currently, we can see how vast that amount of information is. We know when the Macquarie Point Development Corporation put in their submission to the Project of State Significance process back in September of last year, we know that there was a vast amount of information before us. There were 56 appendices in that first submission in September 2024. Then, in January 2025, there was more information provided when asked because it had not covered everything that the TPC required. There were 27 more in January, nine more in February, and then four more submissions in March.
That is a significant amount of information alone to distil, a lot of technical detail. One of my favourite appendices was the appendix on transport. I think it was appendix N, which was looking at the transport links and supporting infrastructure to the Macquarie Point stadium. That in itself is an interesting conundrum for the government because a lot of that enabling infrastructure is not a part of this application.
We have a very strange, half‑done, backyard-shed development. A mega project such as this is something that should be done very well. It needs to blend with and respect the heritage. It needs to be part of the urban form in the area. It needs to have the transport and emergency response for the thousands of people who would use the facility for any event. All of those things need to be considered very carefully.
This is, as has been said, the largest type of project that this state has ever seen. When I was at council ‑ I had spent many years as a councillor ‑ and having the requisite information before me to make a decision, whether it was a planning decision, when acting as a planning authority, whether it was a decision on the community development committee; all of those things were much better informed when I had all of the information before me.
The information that I got – it was important that other people received as well. We know full well that the Legislative Council, and I am quite envious of the situation that they have, where they are provided information before they consider a bill. They sit down together and they are briefed. I think they have even had briefings this morning on forthcoming bills.
We have had 12 months in this place, for those of us who are new, having been elected in March last year. When we are considering a bill, such as the bill that was considered yesterday, there is a chance where you go into Committee, those people who are in the Chamber can go into committee, and they can ask questions relating to clauses or they can ask questions during the second reading speech by the minister. However, you do not always get a direct answer in relation to what you might ask. When we are considering something as massive as this kind of project, we all need the same information, whether we are for or against, we need to be informed properly. This is what this notice of motion from Dr Woodruff sets forth.
It is not a big ask. It is only two days of sitting down and considering this very thoroughly with the relevant authorities and relevant parties such as the City of Hobart, to have information available.
I attended a briefing that the City of Hobart planners and urban designers provided for us. The CEO and senior planners were at that briefing. I think Mr Bayley, Mr Garland and Ms Johnston might have attended, and unfortunately that is only a few of us who heard the relevant information.
If we have that set forth on two days of scrutiny committee, then it is much more effective, because we are all getting the same information. I cannot impress upon this House enough the importance of getting relevant information.
It would be really good to hear from the planner who is setting the planning conditions and to hear how they have reached that decision. If anybody wants to amend this motion and put that as part of who we scrutinise, that would also be a really useful part of getting all the information before us.
When councils have that chance to have a look at things before they make decisions, they have workshops. They sit down and consider things in workshops.
Mr BEHRAKIS – Then the Greens vote against it anyway.
Ms BURNET – Sorry?
The SPEAKER – Thank you, we will have no interjections.
Ms BURNET – Those things are really important. I want to add a few things in response to a couple of things that the minister has said. He referred to clause 34 and I might add, minister, I have not read all the information that was dropped on us yesterday. I am so glad that there are three weeks for people to get their heads around that. I look forward to sitting down over the weekend, hopefully in the right environment in a warm room with the doors locked, and reading the information that we have before us. But clause 34 – this is about the good faith matter, or the minister acting in good faith.
Clause 34, from my understanding, does not have anything to do with the minister acting in good faith. It limits all rights of appeal for any act done in good faith. We can see here that there is no compulsion for the minister to act in good faith, no need at all.
The minister also said:
The quicker the better to get this stadium built.
It is not about being quick about getting something built. I do not think this government knows how to do good planning. Good planning takes time. You do not get rushed by any third party. You do not have to dance to the tune of an organisation that is telling you what to do. In fact, if you were going to do that, you would really go about renegotiating any deal rather than saying, ‘Oh, I can’t do anything. Everything rides on the deal that we have already.’ I do not buy that. I cannot consider that that is an acceptable way of walking away and never ever touching the arrangement that we have before us.
I might add that Mr Willie said that we could not renegotiate the deal with the AFL. It would be so good if we had the opposition functioning as an opposition and saying, ‘Actually, you really have to try to renegotiate that deal.’
We have the crossbench doing the work that Labor should be doing.
Mr Willie – How is the renegotiating going?
Mr Bayley – Why would they negotiate with you rolling over the way you do?
The SPEAKER – Mr Willie will cease interjections. Thank you, Mr Willie, and the Deputy Leader of the Greens.
Ms BURNET – Those points are so important to make in relation to how important it is to look at things really thoughtfully, to consider things with a great deal of information, the right information, the right people to speak about any concerns. It is about the concerns that this House has.
I do not like the way that the government is introducing draconian changes to planning and how planning is done in this state. It is reprehensible and it is really something again that I wish the opposition would wake up and question. We are not seeing that at all. We are just letting good acts be turned into acts that have no legitimacy. It is appalling. It is very concerning. I have had a lot of conversations with architects, planners, urban designers and people in local government who are incredibly concerned about how this parliament is putting the wrecking ball to planning and not considering how strategic planning is done. It is too important, and yet we do not seem to care.
We have a responsibility in this place to consider how we can continue doing our work and what we deliver for our community, the environment and for social outcomes. I just feel that we are missing the point if we do not think about what we have before us. The scrutiny committee will help us with this.
If you think about the $945 million that the state will put in – probably more than that, but this is what we are considering – that would equate to about $1600 per Tasmanian. Why would we allow that to happen when we consider that against any other stadium build in Australia? How is it that we would be saddled or saddling Tasmanians with so much debt for a stadium that would have very few football matches? As much as it was a very emotive debate this morning from Mr O’Byrne’s motion, and it was important to hear those emotions and how important a team is, but it should not come at any cost. We need to be here to scrutinise and do our best. We need all of the information in a very digestible way. We need to question those experts who can help us with delivering anything, no matter what it is, to the best of our ability and the best legislation that we can provide as well.
