That the House:
(1) Agrees the proposed Macquarie Point stadium is a matter of significant public interest and concern across lutruwita/Tasmania.
(2) Recognises a primary public concern is the massive expenditure of public funds on a new stadium – especially given the critical need to build more homes, invest in better hospitals, and deliver cost of living relief.
(3) Notes significant uncertainty about the exact scale of public expenditure on the stadium given:
(a) the Rockliff Government’s apparent failure to negotiate a Commonwealth Grants Commission exemption for the $240 million Federal contribution;
(b) Tasmania’s sole liability for all development and construction cost overruns;
(c) serious challenges associated with construction at the Macquarie Point site;
(d) uncertainty over the public /private partnership model; and
(e) the rapidly rising costs in the construction industry.
(4) Orders the Government to table the Independent Review into the State’s Finances – including the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Precinct component of that review – on the first sitting day of the House following the review’s completion.
(5) Orders the Government to table, prior to 19 June 2024, all correspondence on the Macquarie Point stadium and precinct between the State and Federal Treasurers.
Madam Speaker, fundamentally this motion is about transparency. It is a motion about the costs associated with the stadium. With transparency, whether you are a supporter or an opponent of this stadium, you really should have nothing to fear. There should be nothing to fear about transparency because it ultimately underpins good decision‑making, and it also underpins community support and bringing the community along.
This is a key concern for the Tasmanian people. We have all just been through an election campaign. We have all just knocked on a myriad of doors and we know that this is the issue that is on everybody’s lips. This was acknowledged by the Premier himself on 15 February when he announced a so-called cap on the state government’s contribution to the Macquarie Point Stadium. In a media release he said:
I recognise that this project is not everyone’s cup of tea and that some Tasmanians would prefer that this money was spent in different areas. I also understand that there are concerns in the community that the final cost of the stadium could significantly increase, leaving Tasmanian taxpayers with a large unbudgeted bill.
Hear hear, Premier. That is absolutely true. We completely concur with you and your conclusions when it came to an analysis about what the Tasmanian public think. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House. Certainly, The Greens, do not accept that a so-called cap – this figment of a cap – is some kind of solution when it comes to those community concerns.
When the Premier acknowledges that many Tasmanians would prefer that this money be spent in different areas: again, that is 100 per cent correct. We know that Tasmanians are crying out for public investment in housing to get people off the 80‑week-plus waiting list. We know that we need significant investment in the public health system. We know we need significant investment in the public education system. There are so many things that can deliver for the Tasmanian people and indeed for the economy with that kind of investment.
We have ourselves seen in this Parliament – certainly those of us that were here in the 50th Parliament – exactly what it takes to tyre lever transparency out of this government. It was sorely lacking in the last parliament because it was not until two of the Liberal backbenchers defected to the crossbench that finally there was some power and potency in this place to insist on a level of transparency from the government over its AFL deal and AFL stadium investment.
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I want to make sure that it is abundantly clear that the Tasmanian Greens are strong supporters of an AFL and AFLW team. We were signatories to tripartisan support for that deal going back a few years, and that was when the Premier was telling us that it was not contingent upon a new stadium. In fact, he was completely clear with the former Greens leader, Cassy O’Connor, that tri-partisan support for a footy team did not include a stadium. Do not take that from the Leader of the Greens and what she passes on, because there is still a story on the AFL’s website from August 2022 with the headline saying that the premier confirms the new stadium will not be part of Tasmania’s AFL bid. It says:
Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has revealed it will not form part of the proposal to be put before the club presidents. ‘The stadium is not part of our bid but of course the stadium is there to support AFL content in the future’.
It is possible to have support for an AFL and an AFLW team without supporting this stadium? We know why and how that can happen. It is because we have two stadiums in this state that are already home to AFL, where AFL games have long been played. It is our contention that York Park, with an extra $130 million upgrade that we support, with the best playing surface in the country, is clearly the best place to home AFL in this state. To clear up any doubt, we need to make sure that it is abundantly clear that we support a footy team. I am one of the 200,000 inaugural members of the Tasmanian Devils, and I believe Dr Woodruff is too.
Let me talk about the costs of this stadium. The costs are not just the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, the probably $1 billion plus financial cost of the stadium itself and actually building it. It also includes the dollars we have burned in getting to this point and the goodwill from the community we have burned in getting this point. The Macquarie Point Development Corporation has been through a long process of working out what to do on the site of Macquarie Point. It is probably the premiere brownfields development site in the country, virtually waterfront, an incredible heritage precinct, just there ready for development.
Macquarie Point is a saga. It took a long time and cost a lot of money, but ultimately it was successful. The MPDC talked to the community, to MONA, to the palawa people and they ultimately finalised a plan that was comprehensive and supported. It was the original Mac Point Precinct Plan, the original development plan, and it included the escarpment, the precinct, the gateway, the promenade, the goods shed, the underground, with the Truth and Reconciliation Park being a central feature of that vision for the Macquarie Point site way back when. It was an agreed plan that was delivered at significant cost to the taxpayer. In fact, aspects of it were trumpeted by members of the government when elements of it were contracted out. The escarpment, for example, was literally contracted out to a Melbourne-based developer before the AFL deal.
What has happened since? Another cost that needs to be factored into the construction of this of this stadium is the compensation. How ludicrous is it that the Tasmanian taxpayer paid out some corporate developer to not do a development on the Macquarie Point site? This just goes from fast to ludicrous really, but that is exactly what happened because absolutely everything changed with the AFL deal. There was no reference, as we understand it, to Cabinet and Cabinet colleagues and no Treasury modelling to underpin the decision. It was simply an AFL deal, and we were bullied, cajoled and ultimately steamrolled by the AFL into agreeing to a stadium on this particular site – and not just any stadium – a 23 000‑seat stadium with a roof. When it comes to stadiums, we are talking about the primo version of stadiums that can be delivered.
We deserve a team in our own right. Every single Tasmanian knows that we have such a long footy history and legacy here. We have delivered legend after legend into the national competition, and we deserve a team in our own right, because there is no national competition, there is no Australian Football League, without a Tasmanian team. We deserve a team in our own right and the AFL has overcooked things. It is an absolute overreach from the AFL to insist that the poorest state uses one of its prime brownfield sites that has an agreed development plan to plonk a massive and expensive stadium on it.
As it stands at the moment, the stadium condition in the AFL deal presents the greatest risk to the footy team. Putting aside the politics of this place, the Premier alone cannot deliver that stadium. There is a planning process to go through. There is a funding process to go through. There is the engineering to see whether it is even possible and, of course, there are some incredibly important stakeholders, and I will get to them in a minute.
I will quote someone who put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into the Macquarie Point site over many years and developed the original development master plan, Mary Massina. She spent a lot of time as head of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, and she said:
In my opinion, with the decision to ditch the agreed masterplan and instead seek to place an AFL stadium on this site, the government has squandered an opportunity at Macquarie Point to develop a superb futureproof site that is a place for all, acknowledges its bloody past, its present and firmly and proudly faces the future. [TBC]
Let me be really clear for members here this afternoon that this motion is entirely about the money. It is not about the politics. It is not about the other concerns associated with this stadium, because we know that there are significant concerns. There are stakeholders with massive concerns, whether it be the RSL, the Regatta Association, obviously now the Heritage Council with the heritage-listed Goods Shed and neighbours such as the IXL Jam Factory, the TSO and so forth. There is also obviously the opportunity cost when it comes to the loss of this brownfield site and there are significant concerns around traffic congestion and what this does to the rail corridor that enters Hobart’s surrounds, but the dollars are really critical.
I want to turn to this motion, because it speaks for itself in regarding the actual money that is associated here. During the election and the Legislative Council election, it was the issue that was on everybody’s list. Everyone was asking how much this is going to cost us. For example, running through the actual money components of this motion, there is the Rockliff government’s apparent failure to negotiate the Commonwealth Grants Commission exemption for the $240 million federal contribution. We have been debating that a little bit in this House over a few months now, but it is abundantly clear that there are two things associated with the federal government’s contribution. One, it is not all allocated to the stadium. It has to be spent on the wharf and housing upgrades around that site. Two, it is going to cost us $240 million anyway. It is going to come at the expense of housing, health care and hospitals because the government has failed to negotiate a GST exemption of that. We also have the sole liability for all development and construction cost overruns and that is abundantly clear in the AFL agreement.
Let me just take a moment to read into Hansard exactly what kind of deal the Premier signed us up to when it comes to the overall funding responsibility. Paragraph 21.4 says:
Subject to clause 19.2, construction commitments, and provided that all conditions of all components of the funding commitments referred to in clause 21.2 are met, the Tasmanian Government agrees that it is solely responsible for the costs to develop and construct the stadium, including any costs which exceed the estimated stadium build cost.
The AFL had it all over us. They absolutely had it all over us. And if that was not enough, if 21.4 and Tasmania putting its hand up actively for all of the cost overruns is not enough, have a look at 21.6. Cost overruns:
If the Tasmanian Government determines that additional funds in excess of the estimated stadium bill cost are required to complete the development and construction of the stadium, consistent with clause 21.4, the AFL will have no further financial contributions towards the development and construction of the stadium other than the AFL Stadium Development Contribution.
Which from memory is a paltry $15 million. Again, the AFL had it all over Premier Rockliff and has utterly delivered a rolled gold deal for its organisation at the expense of the Tasmanian taxpayer. That is abundantly clear.
Then there are also additional costs to the Tasmanian taxpayer. Putting aside the conflict and another situation of imposing this stadium on a site that many Tasmanians had already agreed, and thought was going to be delivered to something else, we have significant conflict now. We have significant conflict over this and indeed, on the other side of the river. Almost exactly the same location on the other side of the river, we have a High-Performance Centre plonked, proposed for parkland much-loved by many people in the Rosny and Eastern Shore communities and significant concern. Again, a community campaign now mounting. A community campaign growing to push back and to protect their place. Tasmanians are very good at protecting place. They love their place, they love the places they look at, they walk their dog, they take their kids, they skate, and this is another situation of Tasmanians actually stepping up to protect what they like and what they love.
How does the Premier propose to get around the clear responsibility for cost blowouts as flagged in that original media release? It is through some kind of public-private partnership. We have had media reports and confirmed interest from a group called Plenary Group, but to whom else are they talking? Who else are they talking to behind closed doors? What does the private sector actually get out of this? What is the government trading away? We do not know. This is a development that on the government’s own economic modelling will lose $300 million over 20 years and yet somehow the private sector is going to come in and fund it, stump up hundreds of millions of dollars to build this thing. Which begs the question, what else are we trading away?
If that does not alarm you enough, have a little think and have a listen to what the government has done over recent years in relation to its expectations of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. Every year, the relevant minister has to deliver his statement of ministerial expectations for the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. It is a manifesto on how it expects it to behave, how it expects it to conduct its business. In 2022, prior to the stadium, the statement of ministerial expectations drafted by minister Barnett as the relevant minister at the time, had a very clear section in it. It was 3.3, Commercial Activities and it reads like this:
The minister expects the corporation to only carry out commercial activities that are, (1) consistent with the corporation’s principal objectives and functions; (2) appropriately costed and carefully managed, with the objective that in the absence of a higher priority, the activities deliver a commercial return acceptable to the board and, (3) compliant with the government’s competitive neutrality principles.
After minister Barnett, as the relevant minister, wrote to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation telling them to junk the long agreed worked-up development plan for Macquarie Point that included a truth and reconciliation park and so forth, he wrote to them; told them to junk that; to do another one; make sure it has got a stadium in it; and he wrote a subsequent statement of ministerial expectations where (cont’d) Transparency is important. Whether you support or oppose the stadium, it is a critical element. At the end of the day, we have seen over and over again with big developments in Tasmania that if there is not transparency around the government’s actions, and if there is not transparency around what it is doing – whether it is through the assessment, funding or other elements of assistance that the government can give to big business – then ultimately it is usually to the detriment of that project. We have seen big projects fail in this state repeatedly because government is not transparent.
I say again that the condition in the AFL deal for this stadium currently presents the biggest risk to the AFL and AFLW teams in Tasmania. We do deserve one. Tasmania has demonstrated an inherent right to that team for many years and this stadium is currently the biggest risk, amplified over and over again by a lack of transparency.
