Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – I move –
That the Tasmanian Planning Commission Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR) on the proposed Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance be considered and noted.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission’s Draft Integrated Assessment Report into the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance came out late in the afternoon of 31 March this year. Nearly two months down the track, an enormous amount has happened in relation to this unpopular, divisive and unaffordable project.
Only today, members will have seen that the government has released the draft of the enabling legislation. This enabling legislation would require 50 people, duly elected by their communities in trust, to make a decision about arguably, given the site, the most complex construction project in Tasmania’s history.
Although we are three members down, I thought it was an opportunity today to at least talk about some of the issues that have been raised in the Draft Integrated Assessment Report, because this work is the result of a comprehensive analysis of the issues to date. Yet, within 48 hours of the government receiving the draft report from the planning commission, they decided the path through here was to slur independent economist Dr Nicholas Gruen, who was commissioned by government to do an independent body of work on the stadium, and then to slur the Tasmanians who put themselves forward to be members of the expert panel. For the record again, those people are Paul Turner SC, Chair and former assistant solicitor‑general; Gary Prattley; the wonderful Tasmanian Lynn Mason, Order of Australia, former Flinders Mayor, Chair of the Tasmanian Community Fund; Shelley Penn AM; and Martin Wallace, the former Treasury secretary. Heading up the panel is John Ramsay, a long‑time and dedicated planning bureaucrat.
What the draft integrated report found in summary is that the stadium would cost at least twice what Tasmanians were told it would cost, and an objective analysis of the stated benefits is that they would be around half of what the government claimed. There are significant concerns raised in the draft report about the suitability of that site for that project. Alarm bells are raised in the report about emergency evacuation procedures and traffic management. There are very significant and arguably unresolvable issues relating to the impact on historic cultural heritage on the site, including the sacred ground of the Cenotaph. Enormous question marks are raised over the environmental risks of putting in a stadium and digging out a three-storey car park on an area of land which is recognised by the Environment Protection Authority as a contaminated site, which has a history of having waste dumped on that site, some of which will be highly toxic.
In essence, the draft report turns around and says to Macquarie Point Development Corporation and therefore the government, which is the proponent, ‘You have not provided enough information on these key questions. We ask that you do.’
What was the government’s response? Well, as I said earlier, it was to bag out the planning commission panel; to make threats – and the threat of enabling legislation has been realised today with the issuing of the draft report – to continue to mislead over the true costs of the stadium; and to attempt to blackmail members in this place by saying, ‘If you do not back our bill, the team is gone and that is on you.’ What a shockingly rude and stupid thing to say to 15 members of this place.
Today we find out what we have known all along, and that is that there is no way you could build a stadium like this on that site for about three quarters of a billion dollars. The Greens said it over and over again. Independent members in the other place and in this place have said that.
What do we get today, Mr President? Confirmation that the stadium will cost at least $945 million. We only got that confirmation today despite the fact the government has known for some time. I refer honourable members to the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Enabling Legislation Report, which at page 49 says this:
The 2025-26 Budget assumes an estimated cost for the stadium of $945 million. The Government has stated that when the committed equity funding is fully utilised, MPDC will source the remaining funding required to complete the project through borrowings.
Again, what we were told on day one of the election campaign by the Premier – and when I say ‘we’ I mean the people of Tasmania – is that the people of Tasmania will pay $375 million for this project ‘and not one red cent more’. We have been back through the record of the Premier’s statements and minister Abetz’s statements both inside and outside parliament, and borrowings did not enter the conversation until quite recently.
Tasmanians were told there would be a pitch for a public‑private partnership, for private partners to contribute towards the stadium and that ultimately the decision on any public‑private partnership would go to Cabinet. Well, it turns out no-one who is smart with money wants to invest in a money‑losing project like this proposed Macquarie Point Stadium. The government has walked away from the public‑private partnership pitch.
Now it has been confirmed, in the past fortnight only, a year after the state election, that actually Tasmanians will be on hook for the lot – not $375 million – we will have to make up whatever the cost of the stadium is outside the money that we are getting from the Commonwealth – which, remember, is tied to urban renewal – and the money that is coming in from the AFL. These are very significant borrowings.
Back to that $945 million figure: seasoned hands in here will know that in order for this to be stated in a document like this, it has been known for weeks that the stadium will cost at least $945 million. It is quoted as saying that it has been known for long enough to have been in the Budget, which has gone to the printers. It is only today that we are told something approaching the truth about the true costs because today was the day that the government released its draft enabling legislation bill.
We are about to be put into quite a dangerous situation. This enabling legislation is extraordinary. How it responds or does not respond to the matters raised in the Draft Integrated Assessment Report is very telling. Can you believe – I mean, these are sort of crude comparisons, but the draft report is a weighty document. It is at least a centimetre thick. We have a piece of legislation here to approve the stadium and a permit attached, both of which, honestly, are skanky. They are thin.
Do you know what? This piece of legislation – which will come before the parliament after two weeks of consultation which will be completely ignored – gives extraordinary powers to the minister for State Growth. It is an approval bill with a draft and very half‑cocked permit attached, and the reason it is so half‑cocked is because hardly any of the necessary foundational work for this permit and the conditions that go with it have been done, which was identified by the planning commission in their draft report. It identified deficiencies in their traffic management modelling and emergency evacuation planning. It identified major deficiencies in Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s capacity to deal with the environmental risks at that site, including toxins that blow off the site, contaminated groundwater and contaminated fuel.
We find out today from Macquarie Point Development Corporation in that legislation report that the contaminated fuel has now been upscaled from the draft integrated report, which said that Macquarie Point Development Corporation thought there would be around 120,000 tonnes of contaminated fuel. I better get that right, because it could be cubic metres. Today we find out it is in fact 190,000 cubic metres of historical fill that will be excavated to accommodate the stadium and underground car parking. Macquarie Point Development Corporation did not even talk about the underground car park in the information that they provided to the planning commission. Back to this legislation, and we are not pre-empting an order of the day, of course, because it has not been tabled. I very strongly encourage honourable members to look at this draft bill because the fate of this project sits with us. The responsibility sits with this small group of people. Now, we know how the government is going to vote, and we have got a depressingly clear picture of how Labor will vote on this piece of legislation.
If the government brings this legislation forward, with this skanky little permit attached to it, what this legislation allows for is for the minister to change the conditions of the permit. The permit that we would approve under this legislation has no weight, none at all; because this legislation allows the minister, that is, minister Abetz, to alter permits, and at various points, too.
We are being asked to approve a draft permit. We are being told that everything will be alright because the minister will control the project. We have got a clause in here, for example, that is basically a Project of State Significance clause, or State Policies and Projects Act clause, but without the independent integrated assessment process. It allows this permit approval to override the Conveyancing Act, the Land Acquisition Act, the Land titles Act, the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act and the Railway Infrastructure Act. It says:
The provisions of this act prevail over, and to the extent of any inconsistency with the provisions of any other act, any planning scheme, special planning order or other instrument under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, and any other order or instrument.
Ms RATTRAY – Point of order, Mr President. With the greatest respect to the honourable member, are we on the same notice of motion?
Ms O’CONNOR – Mr President, I am not going to put up with this, this time. I have the greatest of respect for the member for McIntyre, but this is totally relevant to the Draft Integrated Assessment Report. It is the government’s answer to the report.
Ms Rattray – I am just asking the question, honourable member.
Mr PRESIDENT – I will just get some advice.
Ms O’CONNOR – It is not tabled. It is a public document. I do not even understand why there is a question about this.
Mr PRESIDENT – Thank you. If I can have a moment just to clarify. The advice that we have, because this is a public draft document that has been released today, and the Macquarie Point Planning Permit Bill 2025 is, at present, a draft bill that is the subject of public consultation – it is not an order of the day, as you have stated, in either House, and it is not yet known what form the bill will take when, or if, it is introduced to the parliament. In releasing the draft bill for consultation, the government stated:
The government has reviewed and acknowledged the concerns and challenges raised within the Draft Integrated Assessment Report by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. This draft bill and subsequent planning conditions address these points and demonstrates the effort by the government to ensure that the legislation is comprehensive. The enabling legislation and supporting materials are hundreds of pages long, carefully addressing concerns, permits and conditions.
Having regard for these factors, the debate relating to the draft bill is relevant to the question before the Council, namely that the report be considered and noted, and both are in order.
I have been listening, and you have related this new document back to the Draft Integrated Assessment Report. My advice is: I agree that you are within your rights. It is a broad topic. I thank the honourable member for drawing that to the attention of the Council because others might have been wondering. We will continue on.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for your very wise ruling, Mr President. Again, I am surprised it has even come up as a question. I am not reflecting on your ruling, but the connection between all of this is oxygen clear. In fact, we should be nimble enough in here to be able to have debates on issues of the day, even though they have not explicitly been outlined in any subject that comes before any order of the day, if you like. We need to be nimble enough to do that, and particularly on an issue of this significance to the people of Tasmania, but also to the people of my electorate of Hobart who will be most significantly impacted by this project. I am very surprised that there would be any issue with discussing a draft bill that has been put out for public consultation today.
Back to this draft bill and how it responds to the issues raised in the planning commission’s Draft Integrated Assessment Report: what it does is it says a big fat, ‘She’ll be right, mate. What we are going to do is ask you to approve this permit, and then we will go away and prepare things like a construction environmental management plan, which will have to be delivered 30 days before construction is planned to start.’ Who signs off on the construction environmental management permit under this arrangement? That would be the Secretary of State Growth: a uniquely qualified person to oversee the complexities of a construction environmental management permit.
The site environmental management permit? Well, that will be signed off by minister Abetz. That should be fine too, because I heard that minister Abetz is indeed an environmental management expert – not – but it is okay because if minister Abetz is unhappy with any aspects of the planning permit that this council is being asked to approve, he can just change it.
There is one area in this draft bill that allows for a disallowable instrument: that is in clauses 9 and 10, that the minister may issue subsequent project permits and that those subsequent project permits are subject to disallowance, but the minister can issue permits in respect of the access network that are not disallowable. The minister can amend relevant permits: not disallowable. The minister can make a minor amendment of a relevant permit. We would never even know. The minister can direct the Tasmanian Planning Commission to amend a planning scheme. The minister is responsible for compliance with permits. Just let that settle into your mind: minister Abetz is responsible for compliance with these permits, but it is okay because if a mistake is made, in this unseemly haste to build a new stadium we cannot afford, if a bad decision is made, this bill takes away your appeal rights, all of them, unlike the State Policies and Projects Act, which restricts appeal rights to matters of process – still too restricted – this bill removes all appeal rights. All of them. That fundamental principle of judicial review under the constitution, this bill flicks it. Draft clause 34, Limitation of rights of appeal, is an example of what is called a privative or ouster clause. It is really important that we understand that to remove or restrict judicial oversight allows government power without restriction and is at odds with Australia’s constitution and Westminster traditions. The right of judicial review is entrenched in the constitution and embodies the broader notion that review of government decisions by independent courts is a valuable protection to citizens and an important form of oversight of administrative decision-making. It promotes the rule of law by ensuring government power cannot operate without restriction.
Draft clause 25, relating to the subdivision plans, allows for the minister to pretend he is a council. Do not worry, though, you will never see this project in the Public Works Committee – none of it – because this draft bill makes sure that the project is not assessed by the that committee.
Now, I turn to the response to the Draft Integrated Assessment Report prepared last October by the newly quite independent – certainly in relation to this submission – Environment Protection Authority. They had a look at the documentation that the Macquarie Point Development Corporation provided to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, and I will just read you a few snippets from the 24 October 2024 Environment Protection Authority’s submission to the TPC.
I note the EPA’s particular concerns regarding assessment and management of potentially contaminated material, water and groundwater, in summary:
- The apparent lack of a development-specific Environmental (Contaminated Land) Auditor’s Site Suitability Statement.
- Whether the supporting technical and management reports sufficiently reflect the current development design.
- Whether the reports adequately address all aspects of the project interacting with the environment and the associated potential environmental risks and impacts, in particular the project’s interaction with groundwater – groundwater across a contaminated site.
We talk about air quality. ‘The proponent will submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan for approval.’ ‘Dust management is an issue for construction.’ It talks about the contamination of the land. It says the EPA ‘notes that increased vehicle movements will lead to more emissions from vehicles, and a large amount of sewage entering the pump station within a short time period could potentially lead to odour issues.’ On noise, it is ‘noted that a detailed construction noise and vibration assessment has not been performed as a part of this assessment.’ So, Macquarie Point Development Corporation, the proponent – that is, the Tasmanian government – has apparently not done any sort of assessment of construction noise and vibration, which, as we know, would have a significant impact on our wonderful little cultural icon, the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. The question we should be asking is, has there been a detailed construction noise and vibration report since then? Will there be one before we are asked to debate this bill?
Ms Forrest – Did you ask them about that when you visited the TSO?
Ms O’CONNOR – No, I did not ask them because they have not – they have spent quite a lot of money trying to assess the noise, but they are not the proponents, so I did not ask them about Macquarie Point not doing it. They have a fair understanding of the noise impacts, but they cannot assess the construction noise and vibration because they are the TSO –
Ms Forrest – If you listen to the Public Accounts Committee transcripts or read them, there are some suggestions from Macquarie Point that they have addressed some of this stuff.
Ms O’CONNOR – Sure, thank you for the interjection honourable member for Murchison. Just back to this document, the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Enabling Legislation Report by Mac Point Development Corporation – which is prepared by the Department of Premier and Cabinet – what it tells us is that everything is going to be fine. Every issue that has been raised by the planning commission, according to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, will be fine. Everything is going to be okay. Just pass the bill and ‘she’ll be right mate’. Just on the environmental consequences, the Draft Integrated Assessment Report noted:
Where excavation is close to and or within contaminated groundwater, development costs and construction timelines have the potential to substantially increase if the groundwater characteristics are not well understood and considered.
Ms Forrest – Which is clearly the case underneath the Goods Shed.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes. As noted in MPDC’s submission to the POSS process, ‘groundwater monitoring has been conducted and while some contaminated groundwater may remain, direct contact or incidental ingestion is considered unlikely, considering the planned future uses of the site.’ That is not particularly reassuring – that it is ‘considered unlikely’.
Ms Forrest – Just do not face plant on the field.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes. So it does not sink into the contaminated groundwater – is that what you are saying?
Ms Forrest – Do not eat the dirt.
Ms O’CONNOR – Do not eat the dirt, as we used to tell our children. Actually, mine ate a fair bit.
Back to the EPA’s report, the specific comments they make is that there has been a lack of a development specific environmental contaminated land auditors site suitability statement. In fact, this has not been dealt with. A lot of the information the Mac Point Development Corporation provided to the planning commission, especially around environmental issues, was from reports that had been procured under the previous precinct plan for Mac Point Development Corporation. Remember that vision, which was widely consulted, that allowed for mixed-use, social and affordable housing, some high-end housing, transport links, science, small businesses. When MPDC was working on that project, they had some of those works done. The planning commission says, ‘That is not good enough, you will have to do them again because it is a completely different proposed use.’ The EPA has also identified that as a problem.
I do not know if MPDC is overworked or underfunded, which they are not, or being lazy, but it is not good enough to put old reports into a planning process and expect to be taken seriously on that. It is also not good enough to do that and expect us to pass an enabling bill on the basis of outdated information, when the consequences of making a mistake here are so serious on a contaminated site.
The EPA says a significant data gap relates to the lack of assessment regarding the project’s interaction with groundwater. The EPA recommends a groundwater impact assessment be undertaken for the proposal. Again? Has it been? Will it be? Will it be presented before parliament is asked to support or not this legislation?
When we are talking about other environmental issues, the assessment of site suitability for the proposed use, a critical step in an infrastructure project on a contaminated site, has not been completed.
The EPA goes on to say there is contaminated land hazard issues relating to vapour accumulation in basement compartments, contaminated groundwater contacts by construction workers or operational staff, exposure to metals, cyanide, hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds, all of which have been identified as contaminants of concern on the site; uncontrolled discharge of contaminated groundwater from the site resulting in adverse environmental public health outcomes. Contaminated soil exposure to construction workers and site users resulting in adverse health outcomes.
In the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Summary Report – MPDC – 2024, under section 7.5 – Water Quality and Management, Stormwater Discharge Objectives, on page 159, the text states:
Generally, the achievement of operational stage discharge criteria is taken as being sufficient to demonstrate compliance with receiving water body water quality objectives.
That is big if true, but it is not true, according to the Environment Protection Authority. The EPA contends that this is not correct.
The reference table in the technical report is for the exclusion of the stadium roof. It is just another indication of what a dog’s breakfast we are dealing with here ‑ an absolute dog’s breakfast which this government wants to impose on our city.
When the EPA puts out a table of specific comments relating to contaminated land, water, and groundwater, on every metric the EPA assesses the proponent’s information as insufficient. They make the observation ‑ and I will just paraphrase them: it is very difficult to assess or understand the full potential impacts on human health of this project, because of the lack of information provided by the proponent, the lack of foundational work done by the proponent.
I thought it was really important that members have an opportunity to hear about the EPA submission because it has been lost a bit in the white noise of this disgraceful development.
You have to love an independent planning system. We have been told numerous times that the process is over. We are not participating, the government said. In fact, the Secretary of Premier and Cabinet wrote to the Chair of the Panel, Mr Ramsay, on 21 May, basically to say, ‘We are taking our bat and ball and going home. We are going to ask 50 everyday Tasmanians elected in trust to approve this stadium, and we just want to let you know that, as far as we are concerned, the POSS process is done.’
John Ramsay has written back, thanks Ms Morgan‑Wicks for her correspondence and says:
The Commission appreciates receiving formal advice of the Government’s intentions. The Commission delegated Panel met on 22 May, and I have passed a copy of your letter to the Panel members.
It goes without stating that the Commission acknowledges the Parliament’s authority to deal with the matter. Similarly the Commission acknowledges that in undertaking the integrated assessment of the stadium project, it is participating in a statutory process commenced with the authority of the Parliament.
Notwithstanding the intention of the Government, the Commission is obliged to continue with the established statutory processes.
To that end, the Panel meeting on 22 May, reviewed the representations received on the draft Integrated Assessment Report to determine which of those representations should be the subject of a public hearing. The Panel also gave consideration to the indicative timetable for hearings that it had previously advised. That timetable is being reviewed in relation to the number of days allocated for hearings and whether earlier dates for hearings can be considered.
I note your advice that the Crown will cease to actively engage with the integrated assessment process and will prioritise its resources to support Parliament’s consideration of the proposed legislation. The extent to which a project proponent participates in an integrated assessment process is a matter for the proponent.
However the Commission is obliged to continue with its assessment until it provides its report to the Premier as required by s 26 (1) of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993, or Parliament revokes the Commission’s authority to undertake the assessment. To that end, the Commission will continue with its assessment in light of all the information that is provided to it by the proponent, either voluntarily or at the request of the Commission.
In accordance with usual Commission practice, your letter and this response will be published on the Commission website.
I refer honourable colleagues to that exchange of letters.
Mr President, the POSS process ‑ as we understand it, we have had those statements from the Premier and the minister about the POSS process. We were told that there is a question mark over whether or not failing to pass the enabling legislation will ‘kill the POSS process and therefore the stadium’, which were basically the veiled threats, or not‑so‑veiled threats, that were made to independent members of this place.
There are two existing ways through which a POSS can end: a revocation order passed by both Houses of the parliament or a ‘no reasonable prospect’ recommendation by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. There is no way for the government itself, without the authority of parliament, to end the Project of State Significance assessment. There is none.
There are no mechanisms in the act which allow the government to unilaterally withdraw from the POSS process. The Premier’s ultimatum to members in this place to ‘pass the enabling legislation or there will be no ongoing POSS’ is hollow. The government cannot decide to end the POSS process. It can only be ended by a resolution of both Houses or the Tasmanian Planning Commission issuing a ‘no reasonable prospect’ recommendation.
The Greens’ position is really clear. We do not support the stadium. We want it just to go away, but it is not going to just go away. We are passionate about keeping the team, but we will always stand up for an independent planning process, and our planning system is something of which Tasmanians should be proud. However, we have seen a disturbing, undemocratic trend in the past year, since this government was re-elected, where it is just shoving aside the independent planning system, public participation rights, from Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) to Stony Rise to the youth detention facility at Pontville, and now the stadium.
Do you know what that is a sign of? It is a sign of an incompetent government. To me, that is what it is a sign of. You cannot get your projects through the planning system so you manipulate the processes of this place, and manipulate our emotions ‑ for example, with the Pontville facility ‑ by bringing in special enabling legislation that overrides everything. It just smashes everything out of the way.
The problem that the government has is this: if you do not allow for a comprehensive and integrated assessment process for a project of this size, you are begging for trouble. It is not the government that would pay the price for these mistakes, because they are on the way out anyway. On the politics, this is their last term. They are terminal, mostly because of the stadium. It will not be the government that pays the price for the mistakes of not allowing an integrated assessment to take place. It will be Tasmanians. It will be football patrons. It will be the Devils.
It is infuriating to have the Premier imply that anyone who does not support this multibillion‑dollar stadium does not support the team. The Greens have been fighting for this team since before the Hawthorn deal was inked ‑ when Nick McKim, now Senator for Tasmania, was our spokesperson for Sport and Rec. Even before he was the leader, we have been fighting for Tasmania to have our own team.
We had a fantastic meeting yesterday with Brendon Gale and Kath McCann to talk about progress for the team and how it is going. They are terrific people. It was really inspiring, the enthusiasm for this team, the possibilities for this team. I asked them how things are going with the entry to the VFL. I kind of said to them, ‘We do not really need to talk about the stadium, do we? You know our position’, and I just did not feel like kind of beating them up because our position is so clear on this and I really wanted to hear about the team. I asked how our entry to the VFL is going. It is going gangbusters. We should be in the VFL by next year. Where is the team based right now? At Bellerive, a perfectly adequate stadium.
There are now more than 210,000 signed up members for the Devils, more than 100,000 of them from Tasmania. It is kind of like one in five or six Tasmanians has signed up to be a founding member of the Devils, because we know we have earned it; we know we deserve it.
As my colleague and friend Dr Rosalie Woodruff said about this question, ‘The train has left the station’. It has left the station. Let the AFL try, now, to take this team away from us. We have earned it. We have fed some of our best talent into the national league. The sense of pride in that football team already, which does not even really exist, is tangible.
We need to think about how we are going to collectively respond if the stadium enabling legislation does not pass. It would not be good enough – it would be a complete betrayal of the people of this island to go, ‘I told you – no stadium, no team. I told you.’
It would be a betrayal. It would also be a sign of weak leadership and poor strategic thinking. If you are passionate about us being part of the national league and you are the premier of Tasmania and you have a fairly good sense of the politics around this issue and the massive uncertainties with this enabling bill; if you want your legacy to be the team, you will start renegotiating that deal.
Will you at least be having exploratory conversations now? We heard minister Abetz on ABC radio the other afternoon, when he was asked about renegotiating the contract, he said, ‘Ah, well, you never say never.’ That was the first time: cat out of bag. The fact is that any contract can be renegotiated. I am sure that in other contracts with the AFL, different teams have had negotiations subsequent to their original signing.
I will just say this: if the new stadium at Macquarie Point is not approved by parliament, then two things need to happen, in my view. The POSS process needs to be allowed to reach its conclusion, and there needs to be a multi‑partisan, both Houses, wherever-you-come-from-on-this-island stand together to fight for our team.
Going back to the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, in the same way that the TSO has added a cultural richness and a pride in our identity; in the same way that MONA changed the way we think about ourselves and made us walk taller; the Tasmania Devils will do the same thing. I am absolutely certain that it will unite us. I am absolutely certain that it will lead to greater participation in all manner of sport. We have seen Auskick, in the last two years –
Sitting suspended from 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will not speak for much longer. Before the afternoon tea break, I was noting with pleasure the increase in Auskick participation since the team was first announced. It is up by 40 per cent. That is a direct and tangible positive consequence of Tasmania having a team in the national league, and it is something we should all be proud of. It does show some signs of being able to take on what has been happening in kids’ sports, particularly over the last 20 years, and that is the rise of soccer and a move away from AFL. It will be really interesting to see. What we do know about team sports is that they teach people about something bigger than themselves. They teach people the importance of looking after each other and working together. That is what team sports is all about.
The last two things I want to raise with members are two of the submissions that were made in response to the draft integrated assessment report. More than 800 submissions were received by the TPC, overwhelmingly opposed to a new stadium at Macquarie Point. The first notable submission that I want to point members to is from the Federal Group, which owns and operates a number of businesses on the waterfront in and around where the proposed stadium would be. I will pull out a couple of key quotes. The Federal Group’s submission says:
The stadium presents a plethora of unresolved and foreseeable impacts on our capacity to maintain access, protect heritage values, and support commercial activity within such an imposed environment. Despite sustained engagement over a significant period, both through formal correspondence and informal avenues, there has been no attempt by the proponent to address, resolve or acknowledge the issues Federal Group have raised.
This is not a shortfall in consultation etiquette. It is a failure of precinct-scale planning logic. A project of this magnitude and intensity, located within an already active urban waterfront, cannot function as a self-contained asset. Its footprint, construction phase and ongoing event operations will necessarily disrupt the functioning of adjacent uses.
The lack of consultation raises questions about process integrity. The draft integrated assessment report acknowledges a range of material impacts, yet those most directly experienced by adjacent operators remain undocumented, untested and unmitigated. In this context, to proceed without engagement is not a neutral oversight. It represents a decision to prioritise internal project delivery over external compatibility. It treats proximate economic uses, not as collocated obligations, but as collateral.
The submission talks about the requirements on Macquarie Point Development Corporation through the POSS order and it says:
Despite these requirements, the integrated assessment report acknowledged that the proponent has not supplied sufficient information to enable a full assessment of the stadium’s impact, particularly in relation to traffic management and planning, and road closure impacts on Evans and Hunter Streets; construction staging methodology and timelines; noise impacts from both construction and operational phases; visual disamenity; overshadowing and loss of heritage legibility; pedestrian movement conflicts including unresolved access arrangements during events; and clarification on permitted vehicle access under proposed event‑day restrictions.
It draws the conclusion – and I think this is at the heart of it all – that it is the stadium’s location that is the root of all major issues.
The submission says the shortcomings of the stadium proposal are not just the result of minor design flaws or missing detail, they stem directly from the location itself. Macquarie Point is not simply a challenging site, it is a fundamentally unsuitable one for a stadium of this scale and intensity.
I will pause there for a minute. This point has been made in numerous submissions to the planning commission. It has been made by people with design and architectural experience, and it is also just common sense. If you look at other stadia around the country, the aprons on which they sit are much larger than Macquarie Point.
Mitigation is not the same as resolution. It is relied upon when impacts are too significant, too embedded, or too inherent to the site to be designed out. In this case, the volume and scale of proposed mitigations indicate a project that is being forced onto a site that does not support it. The planning response shifts from integration to accommodation, accumulating mitigation measures rather than delivering place-based solutions.
More concerningly, the vast majority of these strategies to mitigate the effects are incomplete, uncertain, or not within the control of the project. Some remain unfunded or untested. Nearly all have not been presented for stakeholder review. A proposal that relies so heavily on uncertain and incomplete mitigation strategies to function is not well integrated. It is an imposed development, not a responsive one. In planning terms, that is a clear sign the project does not belong on the site.
They then talk about the heritage impacts, which cannot be mitigated. The submission says:
This is not simply a case of poor design execution. It is a matter of land use misalignment. The primary issue is not how the stadium is expressed architecturally, but whether it should exist in this location at all. The structure’s presence permanently alters the spatial hierarchy and historic character of the precinct. To describe this as ‘an impact to be mitigated’ is to understate what is, in effect, a complete redefinition of the urban and cultural landscape.
I hope members read the Federal Group’s submission. They raised concerns about the changes to a recent version of the ministerial statement of expectations that removes the requirements on responsible commercial conduct for Macquarie Point Development Corporation. The ministerial statement of expectations was rewritten to remove a requirement or an expectation on the minister’s part that Macquarie Point Development Corporation operates on a commercially responsible basis.
It says, on the money:
The economic case is not simply unprofitable, it is net harmful, it represents a form of economic regression for the area. When the full economic burden of the stadium is accounted for, even long‑term non‑development presents a stronger economic case. The opportunity cost lies not in under‑utilisation of the site, but in the disruption of a precinct that already delivers more.
It is very concerned about impacts on heritage-driven tourism, parking, traffic, on and on it goes. I will point honourable members to the polling. Federal Group commissioned EMRS polling to ask Tasmanians what they thought on a number of questions. I will talk to the high points:
Do you support the Tasmanian government’s proposed stadium at Macquarie Point in Hobart? Yes, 35 per cent; No 56 per cent.
Of the following sites, given a choice, what would your preferred site for a stadium be? The highest percentage, 34 per cent, said redevelop existing facilities at York Park, Launceston, and 24 per cent supported a stadium on Macquarie Point.
Question 3: Do you agree or disagree: the Tasmanian government should spend more than its announced $375 million? The total disagree, between ‘somewhat disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’, was 70 per cent.
Question 4: In your opinion, if the Tasmanian government proposed to go beyond the spending cap of $375 million, should the opposition and independents oppose the special stadium legislation being introduced into parliament? I will pause for a moment here to note that EMRS is pretending that the Greens do not exist, but whatever, they are owned by Font PR. Yes, to parliament rejecting the enabling bill, is at 62 per cent of the almost 900 people who were surveyed statewide.
Do you agree or disagree that a decision by the Tasmanian government on the stadium should be made after the full financial impact to government is known and independently verified? Total agree was 69 per cent.
Question 6, asked about the government withdrawing from the planning commission process, 50 per cent disagreed with that.
Question 7: Which approach do you believe the Tasmanian government should take to make its final decision about the proposed stadium? A total of 16 per cent supported dedicated legislation for a stadium – 16 per cent. Those who want the planning commission to complete the process was 33 per cent, and 38 per cent want the deal with the AFL to be renegotiated.
Question 8 is pretty damning of the AFL: Do you believe the AFL has treated Tasmania fairly or unfairly during this process? A total of 9 per cent of people thought ‘very fairly’; 12 per cent thought ‘somewhat fairly’; but the total who thought we have been treated ‘very unfairly’ – which we absolutely have – is 59 per cent, which is why the Greens last week wrote to the AFL asking them to participate in a renegotiation process.
I will end my contribution today with a blistering submission made by former honourable members of this place, Greg Hall and Ivan Dean. It is not a particularly long submission and members may have read it or heard of its flavour either directly from the writers or through media reports. They point out in their submission:
We have a long experience of assessing public finances. Our orderly planning system has been designed by parliament to give everyone, from investors to developers to other interested parties in the Tasmanian public, confidence that ground rules apply and that development will be in accordance with the rules.
In this case, the government, with opposition support, is proposing to corrupt its own process in favour of returning to the bad old days of unrestrained political patronage, where approvals for prestige projects are available at any price, regardless of cost and regardless of the rules applying to everyone else.
It is crystal clear from the financial detail and the draft assessment that the joke and the bills, if the parliamentary bypass surgery succeeds, will be on the taxpayers of Tasmania.
Almost the entire case for the stadium is that it is a non-negotiable requirement for Tasmania to obtain an AFL licence. Both the government and the Labor Party have sought to justify their pro stadium position by endlessly repeating the mantra: ‘no stadium, no team’. With four of the 11 home games already agreed to be played in Launceston, that leaves just seven matches a season in Hobart.
In the independent Eslake report, the submission says:
Showed that our public finances are in the worst shape of any of the states, including the previous basket case of Victoria,
And warned that:
We couldn’t afford to run Australia’s largest infrastructure program relative to the size of our economy.
The independent Gruen report highlighted major shortcomings in the business case. Gruen warned that costs have been underestimated and benefits overestimated, and they point to the 2019 Stadium Taskforce report, which said:
Within Australia, it’s not commercially feasible to operate major sports facilities to recover the cost of capital and to generate a return on investment.
From my recall, the taskforce’s determination, ultimately, was that something like a new stadium would be nice, but it is not necessary to obtain a team and it is something you could plan for down the track.
About half the third page is spent giving Labor a mighty touch up, which they deserve, talking about the strong statements Labor had made; former Labor leader Rebecca White, who said:
It is clear the stadium will end up costing Tasmanians more than $1 billion dollars with annual interest payments of $50 million. That money could be used to pay for 500 nurses to help our neglected health system every year, or 500 teachers to give our children the best start in life every year. It is completely the wrong priority and Tasmanian Labor will continue to stand up for our state and to stand against the stadium.
Then Dean Winter at the time said Robin Gray has backed everything the Labor Party has been saying about this reckless project. That is former premier Robin Gray, who is vehemently opposed to this new stadium.
Mr Winter said:
Robin Gray has backed in everything the Labor Party’s been saying about this reckless project during a health, housing and cost of living crisis. Premier Rockliff has decided that building another stadium in Hobart is his top priority. He wouldn’t be more out of touch if he was living on the moon.
Well, that was then and as, Mr Hall and Mr Dean point out, Labor’s now joined the government on the far side of the moon and they said they are imploring us.
We are confident the crossbench and minor parties will stand strong for proper process to protect the public interest and that in the Legislative Council this stand will be decisive. That will mean the statutory responsibility of the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the conclusions of the Macquarie Point Assessment Panel will be vital in informing the final decision by parliament on the stadium.
To the Planning Commission they say:
We have great respect for your draft integrated assessment report and full confidence you will continue to act with independence and integrity in the interests of the Tasmanian community.
I thank honourable members for listening today to my contribution. I could not allow an opportunity to go by for members to have this debate before the bill comes to us. It is our responsibility to pay attention to the documentation that is on the public record now, so that when the debate happens, we are all participating in a way where we know exactly what we are dealing with to the greatest extent you possibly can – when you have a government that is not doing a large body of the foundational work for this, has misled Tasmanians about what it will cost, and has promised Tasmanians a process then ripped that away. It is our responsibility and in July it will be our responsibility to deal with this. I hope members will have a look at some of the documents that I have read parts of into Hansard today, before we are subject to this bill.
