Too Many Uncertainties Around Stadium

While Tasmanians await the unfolding of the ‘Project of State Significance’ (PoSS) process, public opinion remains divided, and too many questions remain unanswered.

Scepticism about the accuracy of the government’s costings and economic benefits remain, with several experts saying these are optimistic, unrealistic and unfair.

Penalties will apply if timelines aren’t met, and it’s Tasmanians who will bear the cost. As anyone who’s built a house knows, building projects are rarely completed on time.

Skilled and qualified construction workers are in short supply throughout the country, never mind in Tasmania, and surely building homes should be prioritised given we have so many Tasmanians sleeping rough or couch- surfing.

A rapidly changing climate is one of those economic risks that appears to have been overlooked in the stadium’s glowing manifesto. Recent weeks have shown weather extremes are happening now. Their destructive nature should give a responsible government pause to consider the wisdom of continuing to stubbornly pursue a single controversial piece of infrastructure to underpin the economy and provide jobs.

Far more important would be surely to prepare Tasmania’s existing public infrastructure: buildings, bridges, and roads to withstand climate extremes. Doing so will keep construction workers and tradespeople employed for years. As will building social housing.

Floods and bushfires on the mainland have already ensured a significant number of houses will need to be rebuilt, or extensively repaired. With more extreme weather conditions predicted will the priority be building homes, or a stadium?

Weather extremes will make travelling anywhere increasingly uncertain and more expensive in the future, rendering claims thousands of people will flock to Tasmania to watch AFL matches – and other events – optimistic at best.

Some scientists say we’ve reached that dangerous 1.5C of warming already. Not only will predicted sea level rise occur sooner rather than later – making the proposed and preferred Macquarie Point site very vulnerable – it will increase travel uncertainties and risk.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff inherited this poisoned stadium chalice, but he should have rejected it. Building a stadium should never have been a condition for Tasmanians to have an AFL team. It’s a one-sided deal loaded with unacceptable financial risk for Tasmanians.

“ … the stadium has been dogged by a lack of consultation, unsupported financial modelling, questionable attendance figures and implausible event attraction details.” (Mercury September 7, 2023)

Spot on. And as journalist David Killick stated, the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts Inquiry into the Tasmanian government’s process found several key stakeholders hadn’t been consulted (until after the site was chosen). Among them were the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, Federal Hotels, and the Royal Hobart Regatta Association. All have slammed the Macquarie Point location (as proposed in the Mac Point number one plan).

Tasmania has two AFL-standard stadiums. Matches are played in both – but to declining audiences. No wonder given sporting choices are so much greater now. So is it wise to build a third stadium as a monument to a sporting code whose support appears to be declining? Between basketball, netball, soccer, cricket, tennis, and cycling, for example, Tasmanians young and old are spoiled for choice. Under the circumstances insisting a new stadium be a condition of being awarded a team is reckless.

Ex-Liberal MPs Lara Alexander and John Tucker expressed alarm at the secrecy, lack of transparency and questionable economics surrounding the stadium deal. Around 70 per cent of Tasmanians agree. They also share the MPs’ concerns that such a significant deal wasn’t discussed at either Cabinet or government level.

Tasmanians continue to have scant information about the stadium deal – which makes the PoSS decision even more concerning. The economic uncertainties surrounding the stadium are too many to be dismissed or ignored.

How any responsible premier or government could so readily approve a one-sided deal that potentially places such an onerous financial burden on Tasmanians can scarcely be credited.

The deal also dismissed well-advanced plans for a Truth and Reconciliation and Cultural Centre, and a public park at the site, a development that had wide public approval.

It should be remembered the word ‘stadium’ was not mentioned when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a federal funding contribution for the development of the Macquarie Point site. The funding was for the site’s urban redevelopment. Not a stadium.

Anne Layton-Bennett is a Launceston-based writer and political observer.