Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. We do not know what may well happen over lunchtime in the Liberal Party party room. In the context of my comments on the larger substantive debate, I wanted to say that it gives me absolutely no pleasure to rise to speak on the substantive motion.
The SPEAKER – I will only draw you to the amendment before us. At this stage we have a very long debate ahead of us.
Mr BAYLEY – The Premier is someone who said he would govern with heart, and I believe that he believed that when he said it. It is a range of all sorts of different factors, including the hard right of his party that has helped him make a range of really bad decisions.
The budget mismanagement in this motion is absolutely accepted and it is doing significant long-term damage to Tasmania. That is absolutely accepted, and we see the damage that it is doing. We see it in our health system – the ambulance ramping and the crisis in the health system. We see it in the housing systems and the fact that this government has had to fudge the figures to make it look like they are meeting their targets. We see it in the environment – the underfunding of the environment and the recommendations of the State of the Environment Report, which were an absolute alarm bell for this state, this government and this parliament to come and get things going.
The debt has blown out in this recent Budget, and the deficit blows out in this Budget. What we have seen in previous Revised Estimates Reports is that the government gets it wrong in the Budget. It has to revise its estimates upwards and ultimately come back to this place with supplementary appropriation requests.
Central in the budget mismanagement is obviously the Macquarie Point Stadium. You cannot move beyond that, and that is why the Leader of the Greens has moved this amendment to make sure it is reflected that the long‑term damage to Tasmania that has been done by budget mismanagement is compounded by the plan to fund a new stadium in Hobart. It simply cannot be denied.
The stadium is central in undermining confidence in this government, not just in the way it is managing money, but also in the decisions that this government is making. Things like the Cenotaph, for example – in any other situation, the Cenotaph would be utterly sacrosanct and yet they are willing for it to be sacrificed. They are willing to sacrifice the views of veterans and the views of the RSL in their dogged pursuit for a stadium on this particular site, of this size, with a roof. It is utterly disgraceful on the part of this government to be throwing veterans and the ambience and the importance of the Cenotaph under the bus in pursuit of the stadium.
It is utterly pathetic for the leader of government business and others to roll out things like the Eden Project as some kind of wedge for the Greens. The Eden project was a kite that was flown many years ago. It barely got off the front page of the paper. It was not even a development application and there was no proposal, so it is completely pathetic. It shows how desperate the government is to be trying to point to that issue as a means to defend their utter sell‑out of veterans. You ignored them. You promised that you would deal with their concerns. You promised you would design a stadium in a way that would address their concerns, and you could not do it because you would not do it. It is utterly shameful.
The polls demonstrate unequivocally that people hate this stadium – worse in the north, not as bad in the south, but still really bad, and it got worse again. Even stadium supporters do not support the Premier abandoning the $375 million cap and abandoning the process by which it should be assessed. Even stadium supporters have walked away from your government when you walked away from those commitments.
The $375 million commitment and ‘not one red cent more’ was a critical commitment by this Premier. It was made on day one of the last election. What does that tell you? It tells you that this government knew that the stadium was a problem. They knew that the stadium money was a problem and they needed to cauterise that risk. They needed to cauterise the issue so that it did not bleed votes away from them. The Premier knew full well when he made that commitment that it was not going to be the end of it – $375 million for capital expenditure would not be the end of it.
While the leader points to the business case really clearly and says, ‘Oh, look, it says “and borrowings”‘, when you look at that business case, the borrowings are included in the capital cost. It was always going to be the case as part of that, and you said $375 million to capital expenditure, but that pointed to borrowings.
When it comes to the confidence of the people around the Macquarie Point Stadium and this Premier, I think nothing has tainted both more than the attack on the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the abandonment of that process. The Premier himself brought the order into this House to establish the Project of State Significance (POSS) process. He can rewrite history as much as he wants about it not being his preferred process. He would have preferred a much easier process and the Major Projects process would have meant that it would have sailed through even quicker – that is the subtext of that argument, but the simple fact is that the Premier brought the stadium POSS (Project of State Significance) process and POSS order into this House and it was passed.
We Greens voted against it because the POSS process abandons the planning scheme. Let me be really clear: it abandons the planning scheme. Those protections for the Cenotaph that are enshrined in the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme no longer apply. We were really concerned about that and had deep concerns about the fact that normal planning mechanisms, and normal planning restrictions and rules that apply to every other person, do not apply when it comes to the POSS process. The other reason we are deeply concerned about projects of state significance is because there are no third‑party rights of appeal, and third‑party rights of appeal are absolutely critical in a democratic society to getting planning right.
It means you can actually test the decisions of decision‑makers; it means you can facilitate a negotiation and a mediation between proponents and opponents, and it delivers better outcomes. That is why we voted against the POSS process, but this parliament decided, in its wisdom, to establish that POSS process. Off the Tasmanian Planning Commission went and did its work, and it did it very diligently. It consulted with the community, it established the guidelines, it invited the Macquarie Point Development Corporation to make its submission and it churned through that submission and published a draft‑integrated assessment report. What we saw was, in my mind, an utterly despicable attack by this government on the planning commission.
It effectively passed off a legal representation to the process on a legal firm’s letterhead as some kind of independent legal advice that it should hang its criticisms of the Tasmanian Planning Commission off. Then it went to work undermining the credibility of the planning commission and its panel: a panel that has on it no less than people like a former deputy solicitor‑general, a former treasury boss, and governance and other experts. The leader of government business and indeed the Premier went to task to undermine that body, because the government knew that that body was never going to give a positive recommendation for its stadium.
I want to read into Hansard, for the record, a comment by the Premier in relation to that panel – a panel effectively appointed by him – that published a report, as it was requested to by this parliament. I quote from an article in a national newspaper on 22 April. The journalist writes:
Rockliff, who hit out at the report for failing to be independent, doubled down on his initial criticism.
Then there is a quote from the Premier:
My view is they went in there with a predetermined view. From my point of view it wasn’t objective.
That is an utterly shameful thing for the leader of this state to be alleging against a bunch of people with expertise that he effectively appointed, simply because they have found a long litany and list of issues associated with the stadium at that location in Macquarie Point.
Lastly, in terms of contempt, it is contemptuous for the government to release for consultation a long bill that bypasses and corrupts the planning process but brings forward here, into this parliament, a planning permit and conditions for the biggest infrastructure project that this state has ever seen, but less than a week into the consultation – it still has a week‑and‑a‑half or two weeks to go – they actually tabled the bill.
Utter contempt. They are not interested in the community’s view on the stadium; that is abundantly clear. It was clear from day one. It was clear when the Premier made his $375‑million election day commitment, and it is completely clear when it comes to the Macquarie Point planning permit bill that we now have before us. What an absolute travesty and perversion of process this bill is, and it will be a dark day in this Chamber if ever we get to debate it.
Let me go to the central issue here, which is the dollars that the stadium is going to cost. It is significant. The Tasmanian Planning Commission and others have identified that it would be almost $2 billion of debt over 10 years, and that it risks our credit rating.
The member who just took her seat, Ms Johnston, highlighted the risk when it came to interest rates, and how that will compound some of the costs to the Tasmanian people and the Tasmanian taxpayer from the debt we incur. But of course, if our credit rating is downgraded, that is going have a direct impact. That is one of the things that will have a direct impact on interest rates. It is clearly an utterly irresponsible and reckless act to be funding this stadium in this budget, and that is why we want to see this amendment brought forward.
The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that $600 million is in this Budget to service the stadium, to build this stadium. It includes $13 million for the Macquarie Point Development Corporation directly, which looks like it is to service some borrowings – $600 million-plus is a hell of a lot of public servants – when we are talking about sacking 2500 public servants, $600 million could pay for a hell of a lot of public service. When we are talking about beds in renal units in the north of the state, desperate beds in renal units, $600 million could build a hell of a lot of beds. When we are talking about housing homeless people and giving them the wrap around services that they need to get back on their feet and make a contribution to communities, $600 million would be a hell of a lot.
We have heard a fair bit in this Chamber about the TasCOSS forum the other day and how effectively community service organisations have to do better with less. We were told effectively they have to do better with less. Let me just reflect one story that I have heard from a community service provider that provides services to people with acute needs. When you have people with acute needs, be it mental health, physical health, other needs, it can be an expensive business. This organisation was coming to government looking for additional support so it could maintain its facilities. Do you know what it was told? It was told ‘ ‘Why don’t you focus on people with less acute needs? Focus on people with less acute needs because that will be less expensive.’ How is that? It is the 21st century, it is Tasmania, it is a government with heart, and we are telling community service organisations – ‘Do not deal with the people that have got really bad problems, even though they are there, they will be fine, just deal with the others because they are less expensive.’ Utter shame. Shame on us all, but shame on this government.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission does not stop $2 billion debt over 10 years. I do not think it stops there. It does not stop at the $945 million that the government has now acknowledged this stadium is going cost. It promised the world that it was just $715 million, now it has acknowledged it is $945 million. One of the things the Tasmanian Planning Commission did was identify that Macquarie Point is a highly problematic site. It is toxic. It has a range of issues that could affect human health, health of workers, health of patrons, it could affect environmental health, the health of the river.
Of course, there has been a whole lot of remediation work done on Macquarie Point and we absolutely support that. There has been a lot said about the money that Mr O’Byrne got with the now Prime Minister Albanese, $50 million, to remediate Macquarie Point and that is great, we full support that. But it was remediated for the previous master plan development. It was remediated for housing for parkland and for other development, not a stadium. Not something where you have to dig two or three levels down to build a car park. Not something where you have to drive piles deep into the reclaimed soils for foundations and the like. You know what toxic sites mean? Anyone that has done any development or any managed any development or even observed any development. Toxic site means delay. Delay equals cost.
When this government says $945 million, they are giving you that assessment based on their previous assessment of the toxic nature of this site and what it would take to deal with it. We can expect that to radically increase. That is with the toxic site.
We are seeing radical increases as has already been discussed with some of these major infrastructure developments already. Things like the Devonport berth has been well aired in this debate already; outrageous levels of cost increase – or should I say underestimation and under communication of how much it will cost.
The Cradle Mountain cable way has gone from $60 million up $210 million, incredible. The sewerage works at Mac Point as well; over the years we have acknowledged that they need to be removed. They have gone through the roof.
While I am on the sewerage works, let me pick you up, Leader, because you try to wedge us on the sewerage works. You try to say, ‘You do not support the stadium, so the Greens must therefore support the poo tanks.’ Well, let me tell you, leader, if you did not know already: they are on a different block of land. They are next‑door to the site. They need to be removed, yes, but they are not contingent on the stadium. Do not try to –
Members interjecting.
A member – Oh, they do need to be removed?
The SPEAKER – Order.
Mr BAYLEY – They need to be removed for a whole bunch of reasons. You can remove them without building –
The SPEAKER – The Deputy Leader of the Greens will cease responding to the interjections.
Mr BAYLEY – I am on my feet. You can remove those sewage tanks whether you build a stadium or not. Trying to wedge us on that is just a ridiculous, pathetic argument.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – Members on my right.
Mr BAYLEY – One of the things that has not been articulated when it comes to cost, and it is buried in these permit conditions – that was raised with us by the Hobart City Council. One of the reasons that the Hobart City Council might be so concerned about this stadium is because it has been identified that a whole raft of infrastructure that surrounds the stadium outside of its exact footprint needs to be uplifted. This is the pedestrians, it needs to be uplifted to cope with –
Ms Burnet – It is $336 million worth.
Mr BAYLEY – It is $336 million worth of pedestrian uplift in the streets of Hobart immediately surrounding the stadium. That is why this government has completely botched this project. It is going to cost way more than the $945 million. That is why we need to see this amendment reflected in this motion.
The $240 million of federal funding was given for urban renewal at Mac Point. It did not even mention a stadium, it was contingent on housing and wharf upgrade, but it was for urban renewal. Let me just say, this will not be a wasteland into the future without a stadium. There was a previous master plan that had a great vision for this site, including a truth and reconciliation park. I look forward to talking about Aboriginal issues when we get to the substantive motion because that is a major failure of this Premier. The previous master plan had a well worked up proposal for development.
The treasurer[former or current?] actually put out a statement at the time celebrating the master plan, saying this is going to deliver $1 billion worth of uplift to the Tasmanian economy. Well, what has this government done? It has gone and paid out over $1 million to a Melbourne‑based developer so that they would not develop on the site. As was reported in this House a few weeks ago, they are now having to pay out the Red Shed of the Hobart Brewing Company for not brewing beer in that shed anymore. We are actually paying people not to do things on this site. It is an absolute travesty.
The AFL deal was an absolute dud. There was no consultation with Cabinet. There was no advice from Treasury, There was no consultation with the Tasmanian people. The Premier was still saying to the Tasmanian people way back in August 2022 on an article that is still on the ABC website that the bid for the team is not contingent on the stadium.
The team has momentum. We know the team can be delivered without a stadium.
Mr Abetz – No it cannot. You know that.
Mr BAYLEY – The Devil’s own submission says that a new stadium at Mac Point will increase its revenue by $5.4 to $5.9 million a year. We are having this entire debate compromising this incredible site for that kind of money. It is an absolute sham.
We think we can have a team. We do not need a stadium at Malcolm Point because we have one at Bellerive and one at York park. The stadium has to be central in this motion, because it is part of the mismanagement.
Time expired.
