Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. The Leader of the Opposition has given clear direction in this debate as to why he wants to move this motion of no confidence in the Premier in relation to the Budget. However, there is this cognitive dissonance. There is no connection made by the Leader of the Opposition or the members of the government, particularly the Premier, when it comes to the stadium and its cost. It is a significant burden on this year’s Budget and it will be a significant burden on the budget for many years to come. This is the debt and deficit that we have to have to see. The government cannot just say, ‘This budget is delivering for Tasmanians; we are going to build the stadium at all costs’.
This cost is not only to the taxpayers of today, but for future taxpayers. If we are just looking at a financial burden, it will be a future burden on taxpayers of tomorrow and probably their children to come. It is a significant burden. This lack of understanding or acknowledgement by the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier and his government is astounding. We have heard from many Tasmanians and we have seen it in the polls that they are concerned about this stadium build. It is concerning. It is not something that we can just say, ‘it’s okay’.
I will take up another side of the argument that Mr Abetz has put forward. He is talking about how the City of Hobart will benefit, saying there will be benefit to the City of Hobart if the stadium is built. Quite often, we talk about the ‘what ifs’, so, ‘what if’ and ‘when it happens, this will happen’. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of announcements from this government but also a lack of substance. I believe it was in July 2024 that Mr Abetz trumpeted that we would have a bus rapid transit system. Those people who catch Metro buses now, and those people who have had a look at the budget papers, can see the appalling lack of investment in such vital things as public transport. That should be the priority of this government now, not for a stadium that is yet to be built.
My colleague, Mr Bayley, talked about $336 million of infrastructure. That is infrastructure to be delivered to deliver a stadium. The government may deny it, but a lot of that will fall to the local council, the City of Hobart. We had a full briefing, and Hobart City Council has done a lot in relation to a neighbourhood plan and urban design, to mapping out how a stadium would fit in that landscape and how it would impact on heritage. We are not even considering the impacts of a stadium on such things as the heritage dollar, which is worth a lot to the City of Hobart, as it is across Tasmania. There would be a footbridge, which is unfunded. I believe it has been dropped for the time being , but it is pretty important. We keep hearing about Adelaide Oval and how important that infrastructure is to Adelaide Oval. That footbridge is very important, but the footbridge we have as part of the Premier’s stadium is not funded. Neither is the road access, the path‑widening, the bus stops or the Goods Shed removal. We need to remove the Goods Shed and then replace it.
There are many things that are unfunded and many things that are uncertain around the stadium. Therefore, it is important that this parliament considers the stadium when we are talking about confidence. This is at the heart of what is so pressing about the Premier’s performance and the Budget for me and for the Greens. To not acknowledge that the Budget is part and parcel; it has to be tied up with the stadium. There are so many funding cuts. There are things like the Urban Congestion Fund. Half of that in this year’s Budget and forward Estimates is going to the stadium for the Northern access road. That is a congestion fund. How is that possible? How is a congestion fund, which should be focused on other elements of the road network and infrastructure network, not being considered as something sacrosanct, that should not be touched for the purposes of building a stadium? That is not going to fix congestion. It is a ridiculous notion.
We have talked about the intergenerational debt. There are so many burdens to having a stadium and we cannot depart from that. The Premier has a lot to answer for in relation to this. There is so much uncertainty about the costs that will be borne by the state of Tasmania. We have seen the costs of delivering the stadium go up exponentially. That has an impact on the Budget. It is fundamental to our decision-making and what we should be considering when we are looking at the Budget and the Premier’s performance. That is what is under question here. We cannot separate it from the Premier’s performance. The stadium is part and parcel of it.
It is his project. The Premier has made so many decisions for Tasmania in relation to this stadium, and we cannot get away from that. That is why this amendment is so important. It is part and parcel, certainly for the Greens and for many Tasmanians from right across the state. They have seen the ineptitude, they have seen what has happened with mega-projects such as the Spirits and the Devonport wharf, which I was pleased to visit on the weekend. That beautiful city has a lot of waiting to do, and the north-west tourism industry has a lot of waiting to do. They must be really disappointed. That is one mega-project.
The stadium is a mega-project, and I believe we have to ask the question: can this state deliver such a project? Can this state deliver this project within a budget, the budget that has gone up and up and up? What limit is there on how much taxpayer money the government will spend on this? How much will they continue to allow, ‘Oh, look, we have to think about another appropriation bill’. We will need to do that. When it comes to the stadium, that is what we are faced with. We cannot continue to have an open chequebook. We cannot continue to just allow the government to ramp up that debt. We have seen, we have heard it from Saul Eslake, we have heard it from Martyn Goddard. The infrastructure projects have not been delivered in a budget. Things like Montello Primary School in the north‑west has missed out on that funding to build in a very impoverished area. It is not built as per the Budget in 2024‑25. It is incredibly underspent. This is of great concern. We see this all over the place – infrastructure spending by this government over the previous ten years has been underspent and underdelivered in nine out of 10 budgets. It is absolutely appalling.
The Premier has a great responsibility. When we come to this mega‑project, I do not believe that it is going to be built on time and on budget. I do not think this Premier can deliver that. This amendment is a really important amendment for this House to consider.
