Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I move –
(1) That upon Notice of Motion No. 29 being debated by the House and the debate having closed but before the Speaker puts the Question to the House, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the State Policies and Projects (Macquarie Point Precinct) Order 2025 (Statutory Rules 2025, No. 49) made on 21 October 2025.
(2) That the Committee consider each clause and schedule in the following manner:-
(a) the Chair is to call on each clause or schedule, and ask if any Member has any question thereon;
(b) if no questions are asked, or a question or questions having been asked, no further questions are asked, the Chair shall declare that the clause or schedule has been considered, without question being put;
(c) the Report of the Committee of the whole House be limited to ‘The Committee has considered the State Policies and Projects (Macquarie Point Precinct) Order 2025 (Statutory Rules 2025, No. 49)’; and
(d) for the avoidance of doubt, the Committee of the whole is not empowered to amend any clause or schedule of the Order.
(3) That upon the Report of the Committee of the whole House being brought up, the Speaker shall immediately put the Question proposed by the Motion.
This motion is fundamentally about scrutiny. It’s about giving us, as parliamentarians, the opportunity to do our job properly, to do our job with the time, process and ability to properly interrogate the content of what we are passing so that issues can be explored, answers sought and information put on the public record, on Hansard, for all to see for all time.
What we are debating today is the future of the largest infrastructure project this state has seen for a very long time, if ever. It’s not only large in bulk and negative impact on our city; it’s large in terms of the impact on the budget and the debt burden we would lay at the feet of future generations.
What we are debating today is not just a 50-word motion moved by the Minister for Macquarie Point Urban Renewal. What we are debating is the passage of an order, a 157-page approval of the Macquarie Point Stadium and the myriad conditions drafted to oversee its construction and operation. That order deserves scrutiny. Within that order since the detail that would drive this slow-moving train wreck: the delays, the cost blowouts, the ongoing alienation of key stakeholders and the deepening division of the Tasmanian community. As with any piece of legislation, that order deserves a committee process to allow us, as members, the chance to work through it clause by clause and to scrutinise it.
This motion acknowledges that the order cannot be amended. It is within our powers only to approve or reject. While we will reject it, that should not be an excuse to deny us the opportunity to scrutinise because this order is an extraordinary document. It approves the development against all objective independent expert advice, stakeholder and community perspectives and unaffordability at the time of extreme budgetary stress and increasingly harsh austerity. It delivers unprecedented powers to the secretary of State Growth, whoever they should be at the time, to make decisions about the design, implementation and operation of the stadium, decisions that will have a significant impact on others and are not supported by evidence. Why should members of this place be denied the opportunity to work through the order, understand its implications, and establish, on the public record, the government’s perspective on how it should be interpreted?
This motion seeks time and space for members of this place to represent the interests of our constituents. If others across the Chamber are are willing to abrogate their responsibility to work on behalf of their constituents, so be it, but please don’t deny us as you deceive yourselves. Give us the time and space we need to do our job. Give us the equivalent ability, with the exception of amendments, to scrutinise this order as that given to a simple four-page bill. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2025, for example, makes one small change, amending one clause in the relevant act, but it gets a full committee process and undergoes complete scrutiny, as it should. So should this order.
While all too many of you will be willing to get this done and dusted to get out of here ASAP with the least possible time and without saying a word, many of us aren’t. Give us the opportunity to do our job and scrutinise this disastrous order so that the acquiescence and complicity of all who pass it is formally on the record. I commend the motion to the House.
