Media release – Independent candidate for Clark, Sue Hickey, 26 February 2024

Stadium 2.0 proposal provides sporting, economic and cultural benefits, as well as public transport fix, but don’t ignore other priorities – Hickey

Independent candidate for Clark, Sue Hickey says the Macquarie Point Stadium 2.0 proposal offers Tasmania superior sporting, economic and cultural benefits over the Liberals’ highly problematic and debt saddling stadium development.

And she says it will strengthen the establishment of the Tasmanian male and female AFL teams and provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address Hobart public transport woes that have been neglected for so long.

But Ms Hickey cautions that improving health services, housing, education outcomes, providing cost of living relief and encouraging economic growth remain priority challenges for the next Tasmanian Government and cannot be ignored.

“Like many Tasmanians, I was extremely concerned when a stadium was first mooted. Tasmania needs investment in health, homes, education, transport and to reduce the cost of living. Then, my business background kicked in. We also need economic generators to pay for these services. We cannot continue to rely on Federal Government grants,” she said.

“I also want to see Tasmania have its own AFL team and recognise that a new stadium needs to be built in Hobart to accommodate it.

“So, the development of a stadium must be firmly on the agenda and proposals must be seriously examined.

“After studying both stadia pitches, I believe Stadium 2.0 represents a visionary concept and is worthy of support and provides the best option for Hobart, Tasmania and our AFL team,” Ms Hickey said.

“I cannot accept that the AFL will not agree to play at a superior stadium on a superior location just a few hundred metres from the one originally announced, with the original now beset by a lack of planning detail and well-known dissension within Liberal ranks.

“To say any change means the end of a Tasmanian team and suggesting that the AFL will not negotiate a stadium change is simply playing politics and not in the best interests of the AFL, Tasmania or Tasmanian football supporters.

“The argument that it’s the Liberal Government’s stadium or the deal is off, simply does not hold water.”

Ms Hickey said the $2.3 billion Stadium 2.0 project will transform Hobart by creating a world-class entertainment precinct that will attract international events as well as being the spiritual home for our football team. Importantly, it can facilitate the development of a comprehensive public transport plan, not just for the stadium but for all greater Hobart, including the northern corridor.

“The project also includes significant social and community infrastructure with plans to build more than 400 homes for construction workers that will then convert to much-needed affordable housing after the stadium build, with an additional 300 social houses also part of the comprehensive design.

“It also includes a new private hospital, facilities to support and accommodate the RSL and the Royal Hobart Regatta, retail spaces and a public boardwalk, as well as parking for 5000 vehicles and a large park and ride facility that will significantly ease congestion in and around the Hobart CBD.”

Ms Hickey said Stadium 2.0 will enable the development of a meaningful Reconciliation Park as originally envisaged for the area, rather than the token item in the Government’s plan.

“The substantial private investment, removing the significant taxpayer risk associated with the Government plan, will provide an even bigger boost to the Tasmanian economy. With the private sector stumping up most of the money, it means that the stadium price for taxpayers can be capped at $750 million, unlike Stadium 1.0 at Evans St, where the cost blow-out means that the final bill to taxpayers is likely to be more than $1.2 billion.

“For all the reasons I have outlined, I believe Stadium 2.0 offers the best outcome for Tasmania, the Tasmanian men’s and women’s football teams and the AFL,” Ms Hickey said.

“But this should not come at the expense of our health and hospital services, housing, cost of living relief and the other key priorities.”