Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Honourable Speaker, I begin broadly by acknowledging those who have respectfully engaged in this debate. The closer that we have come to this order, the crueller and more personal the attacks have become, online and in person. As in any debate, we come to the table representing different perspectives, different understandings, unique life experiences and challenges and we can present those without degradation of one another and certainly without threats.
Tasmanians in my electorate of Lyons, who are not having their basic needs currently met, feel overlooked and hurt by this proposal. The Premier said in his budget reply that no Tasmanian would be left behind, but they are being left behind without a clear path to catch up.
The capital expenditure in the Mac Point Stadium cannot and should not be compared to the capital expenditure on schools. A good education in a safe modern facility is the right of every Tasmanian child. Tasmania, which still has the lowest rates of literacy, numeracy and digital literacy of any state in the country and where there are no ambitious plans being put to Tasmanians for vast educational improvements, a functional, accessible health system and safe homes,so a stadium is understandably the least tangible project for many Tasmanians to relate to, especially one that’s been proposed despite expert advice saying it shouldn’t proceed, with a cost of over $1.13 billion, and with just 70 per cent design work complete.
It is embarrassing, to be honest, as is the fact pointed out by the Tasmanian Planning Commission that the stadium is too big for the site that it is being proposed on. Finding impacts on the surrounding heritage buildings and that the disbenefits of the project outweighed by the benefits, the TPC rightfully and unequivocally recommended the government do not proceed.
The Spirits debacle, as has been said today, is a textbook example of poor fiscal and project management. The stadium, which is yet to even get through the parliamentary approval, is already showing all the signs of even worse project management. The honourable Treasurer spoke today about the need for forgiveness and understanding for MPs when they have more knowledge available on various projects, when more science comes to light, that they can admit fault and go on and make better decisions and that we should forgive them for that and understand. He is absolutely right; we should have a political space where, if fault is admitted because of unknown circumstances and a new path put forward is found, we should acknowledge the incidents and move on.
Here we have a TPC report, the Gruen report, Saul Eslake’s assessment and others which have all explicitly laid bare the issues of building a stadium at Macquarie Point, yet you are forging on with it. You are pushing this through in full knowledge of the costs, the strife and the challenges that will inevitably come. Choosing to proceed with that knowledge in advance as a deliberate action is not going to be forgivable. The TPC clearly stated that the stadium, including its roof, through its size, scale and form will be dominant within the landscape, diminish the prominence and significance of the neighbouring domain headland as a frame of Sullivans Cove. It said it will irrevocably change for the worse, in the opinion of the panel, the way in which the landscape and urban pattern is appreciated and understood. The project will not be a fair development. It will extensively and irreplaceably damage the historical cultural heritage of the heritage-listed buildings in Hunter St and the Engineers buildings and most particularly the Cenotaph.
The Premier’s flippant comment that this is the most scrutinised project in the world is almost as absurd as his statements on the costs for the stadium. Remember when the Greens and some Independents were laughed at for projecting that the stadium would increase to over $1 billion? Well, here we are. The Planning Commission explicitly states that the government’s stadium cost estimates are ‘optimistic and there is a significant risk the true cost will be much higher than the estimates.’
There’s the cost of the storm water treatment and planning still to come, which even the proponent identified as requiring high capital expenditure. Investment needs to be made to ensure pedestrian safety, including widening footpaths. An additional onsite remediation also needs to occur to ensure Tasmanians aren’t exposed to any contaminants remaining in the soil. The additional costing that we do know of and we do have an actual dollar amount for, is to address the noise issue for the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, which is to the tune of $4.5 million. But whether this will actually be enough to address the entire noise issue remains unknown.
The TPC report’s future budget blowout statement comes after four other increases. Tasmanians to come will cop the consequences of this decision if it goes ahead, which is why the lack of scrutiny, particularly today, is so disappointing. I’d remind members of the 1968 debate which was on the Wrest Point Casino Development Act 1968, where there was a forthcoming referendum. Labor figured that they had the numbers early and brought the bill on for debate prior to the referendum. Debate for that raged on for 30 hours straight and we couldn’t even award members 40 minutes for their speech. Labor is happy to talk about the Spirits and the concept that is TasInsure. Yet even with all the damning reports on the stadium here before us, we’re debating on this on behalf of all Tasmanians. Where have you been? How many of you have read the TPC report? Or are you staying silent because consciously you don’t actually agree with voting for this? Tasmania deserves its own AFL and AFLW teams, but Tasmania does not deserve the financial burden of borrowing money to service stadium debt for the next 30-plus years. Deals can be renegotiated, and deals poorly negotiated should be amended. Look at Marinus, and as has already been mentioned today, the Victorian government decided it was ultimately better to withdraw from its 2026 Commonwealth Games pitch, so it can be done.
The YouGov poll from earlier this year showed that 69 per cent of Tasmanians surveyed agreed with the statement that ‘the AFL is treating Tasmania unfairly in its requirements for granting Tasmania a licence to join the national competition.’ ERMS polling from February this year showed that people in my electorate were mostly against the proposal; 63 per cent were opposed. This polling is reflective of the conversations happening in my electorate, certainly profound in the election. Conversations were laced with the dire need for basic services and the confusion of why the government would prioritise a stadium over meeting the basic needs of Tasmanians. Even today, no amount of creative accounting spin can buy a social licence for this stadium with the people in rural areas who cannot access vital healthcare, who can’t call 000 in an emergency, and who have infrequent if any, public transport.
On the 23 May this year, the Tasmanian Doctors for the Environment released a public statement. It said:
A group of doctors sit together after a meeting in Hobart, talking about living and working in Tasmania; what we need, what we want and what we don’t want, what our patients need and want. No one set a stadium or even an AFL team. What was agreed is that we all hear is that there is no money.
We are doctors; we like working with the facts. We rely on research that has been reviewed by experts in their field to make the best decision that we can. We know a lot about wishful thinking and denial and human behaviour. We know about choices and consequences.
For Tasmanians, things are really tough, are already tough. In this state, we are older, sicker, more spread-out than other states, and half of us can barely read. Fewer of us have jobs, we work fewer hours, and for each hour we work we produce less.
We don’t have deep pockets. We get less back from our minerals and there are other options for increasing finances that we don’t use. Climate change will bring more fires, storms, floods, droughts, sea-level rise and storm surges and all their associated costs. Then there is ecological collapse, pollution, plastic and waste.
Talking of which, exactly where is the massive tonnage of contaminated soil and water from Mac Point going to go, and how safe is it now? Our government should be putting money aside for all of these predictable demands now, not emptying the budget for a passion project held in blind faith and without limits, and subject to an unreasonable stadium demand. The cupboard is bare, so what do we want – toys or food?
On water and pollution, Dr Graeme Wells made a statement on 25 January this year. He said:
It’s a hallmark of poor public policy to claim, as Rockliff did in the face of a series of expert analysis, that we know the stadium stacks up. As the saying goes, when you’re stuck in a hole, stop digging. Perhaps it’s time to put the spade away and take Dr Gruen’s recommendations seriously.
Speaking of digging holes, the physical construction hurdles of building a structure of this scale at Macquarie Point are yet to be fully understood. Mac Point was once a gas works and heavy industrial site. It has had significant soil and water contamination. It contained toxic coal tar, heavy metals, asbestos and other industrial chemicals. This toxicity poses a risk to public and environmental health, and particularly the flow-on effect for the River Derwent. Although some remediation has already occurred at this site, the TPC report stated:
No new substantive information on the current site contamination characteristics was provided at their hearing.
The EPA identifies that there is uncertainty about the plans for the development, including how it will interact with groundwater, and there are concerns over the stormwater management.
At this stage, it appears that the project won’t comply with the Water Quality Policy, a policy that states authorities must require that storm water controls are specifically addressed at the design phase of proposals for new developments, and ensure that best practice environmental management is implemented. The TPC says on all of these issues, the sustainability of the site for the proposed stadium will not be known until after the site suitability assessments for the stadium are complete.
Development of the stadium, Aboriginal Culturally Informed Zone, and storm-water arrangements before that point will not be consistent with the site contaminated NPMM.
If you can visualise the pulp mill toxins, you are selectively blind if you are not seeing those at Mac Point.
I don’t know how many members in this Chamber were still up late last night after we finished, but there was an aurora. It was fantastic. What’s even better is that we live in a capital city where we can see dark skies, one of the only few left on the planet where we have that privilege. The lighting study for the 70 per cent of the designed stadium did not evaluate the facade lighting, signage, concert lighting or the translucent roof’s glow. The transparency and materials of the roof remain undecided, so the level of external light emissions cannot be accurately predicted. Indeed, in the latest designs, plans include elements not covered in the original lighting model. The Hobart City Council has argued that the lighting assessment underestimated the amount of illumination escaping the roof. The Federal Group, which operates nearby accommodation, warned that light spill could affect guest accommodation and sleep.
The proponents sought permission to operate lights beyond the standard curfew of 11.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., but do not specify limits or provide supporting analysis. If the government’s estimate of over 300 events each year rings true, how many of those would be running beyond the standard curfew? The true extent of light spill is unknown. Hobart is one of the final cities on the planet that you can look out the window and see the stars or the southern lights, so we must see far better planning.
To take a serious step back, at a very high level, and this is not exclusive to Mac Point or the Tasmanian AFL discussion, but it is a discussion we have to have. The TPC has investigated social benefits, but what it hasn’t fully investigated is the increased impacts of gambling, alcohol consumption and domestic violence. I am raising this in a general context because statistically, during and after big sporting events anywhere, not just in Tasmania or Australia, but around the world, there is a notable spike in domestic violence incidents. This is Australia’s and indeed the world’s unspoken crisis and it’s time that we started talking about it so that we can overcome it. Tasmania already has the highest rates of intimate partner violence in the country, with low prevention investment per capita. So, when we’re planning for big events, we should also ask if we have the support systems and resources in place to not only deal with this increase in incidents, but to mitigate it all the time.
On emergency services, further to keeping Tasmanians safe it is still unclear how the large number of people will move beyond the stadium to an emergency gathering point if needed. The TPC noted:
Achieving the regulatory requirements for emergency evacuation may require design changes.
Mr Bayley already spoke about the impacts to the RSL, but I will read into Hansard a letter sent earlier this week from Major Ted Leeson, who is a constituent of mine at Eaglehawk Neck. He writes:
Please note, I am very opposed to the present proposal for the stadium at Macquarie Point. I firmly believe that the proposed structure will negatively impact the present views and the very significant sightlines which are inseparable to the sensitivity of the memorial to our fallen war dead. As a decorated war veteran and someone that earlier in my military career stood as a member of the honour of the guard at the Cenotaph, and as a Tasmanian of over 70 years, I want to be heard and for my opinion to mean something to you.
The present proposal is a sacrilege and a desecration to the state’s most important war memorial. It is very apparent to me that had this been a site sacred to our First Nations people, that you, as a member of parliament, a representative of the people’s state, would not dare disrespect and desecrate this site.
I note that this is also a sacred site and that’s not properly been considered:
You have a number of reports before you. Very few support this proposal. I ask you to search your hearts, acknowledge the freedoms we enjoy because of those who have served in defence of this great country, to uphold the sanctuary of this sacred site and vote against the present proposal to build a stadium at Macquarie Point.
An everyday Tasmanian trying to build a garden shed or to pop up a small home in their backyard to help alleviate the housing crisis would not be allowed to present a 70 per cent finished design to a local council. They wouldn’t be allowed to proceed with plans that didn’t fit their site or that didn’t fit the planning scheme. Why in this place should we accept the government pushing through this order at this time, this order that is only 70 per cent complete, a design that, even when incomplete, is expected to cost over a billion dollars. We know it will cost more. The cost has increased on more than four occasions and that’s before, as the Premier stated this morning, a sod has even been turned. This is poor planning, it is poor process, terrible fiscal management and it’s socially reckless.
On behalf of the majority of people in Lyons and, indeed, Tasmania who do not want this stadium, I cannot vote for this order. That was my pledge to them at the past election, which was on the basis of this budget and partially on this stadium. I am proud to have upheld the values that I was voted into this place for.
The divide between those with and without in Tasmania is widening and this proposal will increase that divide. There may be a waitlist for the thousands of people wanting to go to JackJumper games, but there are also waitlists for medical appointments and housing. This is not the time for a new stadium and certainly not one at Mac Point. Mac Point does have great potential for an appropriate development at that site: housing, a cultural centre, a social hub.
We all want to give Tasmanian children inspiration and aspiration, so how about ensuring they are on a path to a future that is anxiety‑free, one where they know they are going to have essential services when they need them? That they will have a safe home, leading education and training opportunities as well as well‑paid employment here in Tasmania. They deserve all of that, in addition to an AFL and AFLW team, without the intergenerational debt repayments.
