Transcript of media conference with Vica Bayley, Greens’ MHA for Clark; Cassy O’Connor, Greens’ MLC for Hobart; and John Hardy, CEO of RSL Tasmania, Hobart Cenotaph, 14 June 2024.

Vica Bayley

I’m incredibly honoured to be here today with Greens’ Member for Hobart, Cassy O’Connor, at the Cenotaph – Australia’s oldest war memorial – to announce today that at the request of the RSL and its sub branches, the Greens will be working up and introducing new legislation into the parliament to protect the Cenotaph and its important sight lines.

This site where we are today was specifically chosen in the early 1920s because of its prominent location in around Hobart, and important sight lines have been identified since that time that need to be protected. These are sight lines from the Cenotaph towards the River Derwent, towards the city, towards Battery Point and Sandy Bay.

The Tasmanian government’s Macquarie Point stadium will obliterate many of those sight lines. The RSL its sub branches, and many stakeholders and individuals across Tasmania, are deeply alarmed by the impact that a stadium at Macquarie Point would have on the sacred and the culturally significant values of the Cenotaph. This is an important place, not only for for all Tasmanians, but indeed it’s Australia’s oldest war memorial, and it is incredibly significant.

Under normal planning rules, these sight lines are very well protected. The Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme has 15 meter height limits on the Macquarie Point site. And the sight-lines that we’re talking about to the River Derwent, to Battery Point and to the city are explicitly named up as being required to be protected, as is the reverential ambience of this site. And of course, those those sight lines would be impacted by the stadium development.

One problem with the Project of State Significance process – and that is why the Greens don’t support it nor the Major Projects process – is that it overrides any and all planning rules and regulations. So the 15 meter height limits at Macquarie Point, the protected sight-lines, they are all thrown out the door, and what is protected becomes entirely at the discretion of a selected panel. Now we’re not saying that that panel is going to ignore the important values of the Cenotaph. The guidelines that have been written certainly enforce or compel the proponent, the Tasmanian Government, to address sight-line issues, but they are no longer enshrined as needing to be protected.

So we propose a Cenotaph Act. There are Cenotaph acts in other states of Australia: there is one in Victoria, and there’s one in the ACT that protects the important values of the Cenotaph. We propose that this act would enshrine in law the sacred nature of the values of the Cenotaph and ensure that they are protected and are protected in perpetuity, and that they override the kind of processes like the Project of State Significance process that throws out long standing protections for these kind of values.

We’re going to take time to consult widely about this bill, consult across the Parliament, consult with the RSL and its sub branches, and indeed, the Tasmanian community, and intend to introduce it into Parliament this year. We know that there is not a single parliamentarian that doesn’t respect the service of our servicemen and -women, that doesn’t honour the sacred nature of this Cenotaph and other war memorials around the state. We know there is strong attachment to the significant sacrifice that servicemen and -women have made on our collective behalf. So we hope that this legislation will be embraced and that the values of the Cenotaph as a result will be protected

Cassy O’Connor

I will say something very briefly, and Vica as Veterans Affairs spokesperson will take the questions, but the Cenotaph here is sacred ground. It’s a reminder of what Tasmania lost and sacrificed to war, the husbands, the sons, the brothers, the fathers. There was great sacrifice from the state of Tasmania, and it’s represented here on this sacred ground, and we believe there needs to be that extra layer of protection around the Cenotaph. And as a member of the Upper House, a Green in the Upper House, I will be talking to my colleagues in the Upper House to secure their support for this legislation. And we believe it should have broad support across both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament, and we believe strongly that that’s what Tasmanians would want, and the people of nipaluna / Hobart would want.

John Hardy

So before we start, I just need to clarify one thing, and that is RSL Tasmania fully supports an AFL team. It fully supports a stadium, or stadiums. Only last month I wrote to the AFL CEO and the President of the Tasmanian club, Mr O’Brien, and confirmed that and spoke to him on the phone as well. We fully support an AFL team. That is not a question.

All we are asking is that we consider where we put this stadium. It currently cannot go where it currently wants to be put. We are opposed unanimously in that stadium being placed there. If it is placed there, at Mac Point, it will completely destroy critical sight lines. These sight lines were laid down by our forefathers, the very names from families that are actually enshrined in the tomb behind us, of which there were 522, and that includes 17 Anzacs from the first day of landings.

This isn’t just important historically. Let’s not think this is the First World War, a Second World War thing. It isn’t. There are still Australians dying year in year out, in conflicts around the world, and this also commemorates them. That’s something that’s got to be said. This is not about something that happened 100 years ago. It is about something that’s happening right now.

We do not trust Macquarie Point Corporation in the planning and the development of this stadium. We know now that this stadium will be 95 meters from the base of that Cenotaph. That’s not very far. It will be between 40 and 50 meters high. And by those two definitions of facts, it will destroy critical light sight lines, and will change the environment that we’re in now forever. That’s why we’re doing it.

Journalist – Josh Duggan

Do you feel like the RSL concerns have been probably valued and respected by the government in this conversation?

John Hardy

We’ve engaged with the government since day one. We’ve made it clear from day one. And what has been quite simple for the RSL is our tune and our music has never changed. Everything I’ve spoke to you gentlemen and ladies about has never altered, not for one second. We’ve always made that point clear. We always put our point across quite concisely and quite crisply. I’ve always done that. That’s why we are as opposed today as we were when we first voted at Congress overwhelmingly to oppose this stadium. So the answer to the question would be ‘no’. We fear, however, more than Macquarie Point Development Corporation and what they will try and push through. As has been eloquently put by the greens, the Sullivans Cove Planning Permission or Planning Scheme clearly lays out on page 172 what you can’t do at this site.

Journalist – Adam Langenberg

Until a couple of months ago, Labor would have been queuing up to join you here. Are you sort of disappointed that they’ve changed their tune in the last couple of months and are now supportive of a stadium at Macquarie Point?

John Hardy

The RSL is apolitical. What parties choose to do is up to them. Sometimes you have to be brave to stand up against the wind, and we are standing up against the wind. What individual political parties choose to do is their choosing. It’s not ours. We believe in something that we believe is just and right, and we will fight for it.

Journalist – unidentified

Can you speak to the significance of the concept of sight-lines and how important that is for you in regards to the Cenotaph?

John Hardy

It’s not just important for me. So if you think now, go back 100 years. We know that the first sort of buildings here, in regards to a memorial, were wooden, and it was behind us where we are now. That was about 1916, 1917, 1918, so this city was very different than what it was then. And all the troops that left here, the last thing they would have seen would have been this. So those sight lines are critical for what those troops saw when they left. In the same way, if you look behind you, you’ve got a monument behind you from the Boer War. And strangely, it is also facing this way, because it was critical for them as well. So it goes back through the modern era of Australia. That’s where those sight lines are critical. It gives them reference points of what the last things they saw before they went into conflict. That’s as current today as it was in 1914 or 1902 if you want to talk about the end of the Boer War.

Tasmanian Times

The AFL has quite a relationship with the RSL, with a whole round of games dedicated to commemorating Anzac Day. So if hypothetically a stadium did go ahead or was approved, how would that affect that AFL-RSL relationship?

John Hardy

So the AFL and RSL relationship is strong. It’s always been strong, it always will be strong, that’s not a question. What is at question is where the current stadium is going to be built. I believe the AFL is quite reasonable, and if we continue to put our point across, as we have done, both written and verbally to the AFL, then they may come round to the concept that maybe we can move it. We’re only talking about moving a stadium four to five hundred metres, that’s all.

Journalist – Elliott

To your knowledge, is this the first time a Cenotaph Protection Act has been talked about in Tasmania, and how important is it in terms of ensuring the Cenotaph will be protected?

John Hardy

The answer is I don’t know if it’s been done before, but I think up to this point, it’s clear to say that the Sullivans Cove scheme was enough. It’s always enough till it isn’t enough. And in that scheme, it clearly lays out what you can and can’t do. That has always been respected up to now, and as previously said, under the Projects of Special Significance that can be changed. And I’m not saying for a second that those panel of five will change it, but there becomes a risk, and we must try and manage that risk.

John Hardy

I think it would be a crying shame to build Mac Point 1, when actually all we really need state government to do is to have a serious conversation about Mac 2.0. Because that solves our problem, as it would if they built a stadium anywhere else, because it’s nothing to do with us. We’re only here because of this Cenotaph behind us. Commemoration, mateship, veteran services; everything outside that is not the RSL’s business.

Journalist – Elliott

Given that there has been legislation in other states and territories, but not here, does that indicate that the Tasmanian Government is behind the rest of the country in terms of the value of places on these sites.

John Hardy

Difficult question. I think the Tasmanian Government may have underestimated the ferocity of which we would fight for what we believe is right. Sometimes it’s difficult to be brave. Sometimes it’s hard to stand against the wind. We’ve got to stand. We have no choice. In 50 years if there’s a stadium over to my left hand my left hand side, I don’t want anybody to be able to say, ‘well, what did RSL Tasmania do about it?’ If it stands or doesn’t, we’ve done our bit. That’s our duty.

Tasmanian Times

Have you spoken to the architects who are currently working on designs? Is there’s possibly some way that they could manage the shape that would protect the sight-lines?

John Hardy

We have had one consultation with the current architects. We are waiting to see their designs. There’s a few factors. The first factor is we know because the Macquarie Point CEO told me we, that it’s going to be 30 metres from the fence over to my over to my left side, the stadium. We know that fence is 60 metres-ish from where we stood now, so we’re saying it’ll be 95 metres away. That’s really close, 95 metres. So that’s the first thing we do know, and that’s based off their plans. So they’ve already said 95 metres.

We also know that cricket can only be played in a stadium if the roof is so high. We know that stadium has got to be 40 to 50 metres high. People are talking about translucent ceilings, or roofs. It still has to have steel in it so it can hold up the internal lights. It still has to have steel in it so it can hold up the internal sound systems. You’re not going to be able to look through something like you would a pane of glass. It’s going to be a big, big building. To put it another way, Tasmania and its beautiful country is surrounded by things of great magnitude, where the nature dominates the landscape. This will be the first time where man has dominated the landscape. Is it worth that?

Journalist – Josh Duggan

How do you reconcile the government’s normally quite strong support for veterans and generally a pretty strong backing of what veterans would like, with this issue where you said that you haven’t really been valued or respected, or the views haven’t been?

John Hardy

Communities have different opinions. There’s no reason why this community can’t have a different opinion. The State Government has an opinion of where it would like to build stadium Mac Point 1, let’s call it that. We have an opinion that it should be built. If you want to build it in Hobart, if you want to build it here by the Cenotaph, we’re saying, ‘okay, but it’s going to have to be Mac 2.0 because Mac 1.0 affects critical sight lines and dominates the Cenotaph’. I think that’s a conversation. Life is full of compromise. Why can’t this be a compromise? Just

Tasmanian Times

Just to be clear, the RSL has not been offered any financial or other inducements to back 2.0?

John Hardy

So, when 2.0 came to us, they said to us that they would like to support the RSL, which they’ve done. As part of the plans, which is clear public record, they are going to incorporate a museum. We fully support that museum. Why wouldn’t we have a museum by a cenotaph to commemorate, celebrate what serving soldiers and veterans are doing all over the world. I think that’s quite noble. If the question is, have we gone to them for financial backing? Absolutely not.

Journalist – Elliott

So would this proposed legislation be very firm in pointing out that this isn’t an either-or situation? What you’re proposing is protection of the Cenotaph against a stadium, not –

Vica Bayley

It’s actually legislation that’s not specific to the stadium. It’s specific to the Cenotaph, and it’s specific to the important cultural and spiritual significance of the Cenotaph, specifically those sight lines, whether it’s a high rise building, whether it’s a stadium, whether it’s stadium 2.0 it would apply equally, and it would protect values, and it would ensure that there are criteria against which the stadium is assessed.

Currently, as has been outlined, there are some pretty strict planning rules against which any development at Macquarie Point would need to be assessed: 15 metre height limits and protection of sight-lines But the problem with the Project of State Significance Process is that they are abandoned. There are no explicit criteria that this stadium must meet and must be assessed against, and it’s entirely at the discretion of the Assessment Panel and then ultimately, the Parliament as to whether it should be approved or not.

What our proposed Cenotaph Act would do, would enshrine those sacred values in law, give them supremacy, as most Tasmanians, I think all Tasmanians, would expect would happen with a site as significant as this Cenotaph, and ensure that they are protected. That’s what the RSL is asking for. That’s why the RSL has come to the Greens to ask us to bring this legislation forward. We’re going to do the due diligence and draft this legislation, consult widely, and then bring it to the Parliament, and we’ll be giving it our best shot to see it passed.

Journalist – unidentified

How confident are you that you can generate the support you need legislation such as this parliament?

Vica Bayley

It’ll be, I guess, an interesting test for parliamentarians and their commitment to, you know, to the Cenotaph and to what it signifies. As I said before, I think all parliamentarians accept the importance of this site and the sacrifice of of our servicemen and -women. I’m pretty confident there will be strong support for the protection of sight lines. But herein lies the problem.

Herein lies the problem with unilaterally, the Premier, unilaterally agreeing and the AFL imposing, as part of a condition of the AFL license, a stadium on a specific site to be built by a specific time. No one person can guarantee that, because there are a whole range of hurdles that need to be jumped through. That’s why stadium condition in the AFL agreement is currently the greatest risk to a Tasmanian AFL and AFLW team. The Greens are very strong supporters of football in Tasmania, and strong supporters of an AFL team and an AFLW team. We were tri-partisan supporters of the proposition when the Premier was guaranteeing that it wouldn’t include the construction of a new stadium anywhere in the state.

That all changed, literally at the stroke of Premier Rockliff’s pen, with no reference back to Cabinet, with no reference back to Treasury and with no reference to the planning constraints that have been in in place in this in this city for y decades and decades that have protected the values of the Cenotaph. That leaves those values exposed, that leaves those values at risk. And that’s why the RSL has come to us to ask for a legislated solution to ensure that those values are enshrined in law and will be protected.

Journalist – Josh Duggan

Labor says it’s now supporting the stadium, obviously, but is it fair enough that the things they were talking about before in terms of veterans needing to be respected should still guide their decision making on this particular piece of legislation initially?

Vica Bayley

Absolutely. I mean, we share many Tasmanians’ disappointment with the Labor Party’s new position on a stadium. It campaigned long and hard, including to the two recent elections, the state and the Upper House elections, with a position opposing the stadium, and then before the numbers had even come in on the Upper House elections, reversed that to support it. That’s disappointing, but look, that’s their decision, that’s for their them to own.

What we Greens will do is stand up and oppose this stadium. We don’t support the billion dollars that will need to be invested in it. We don’t support the fact that Tasmanian taxpayers will be on the hook for every single dollar of cost overruns. We don’t support the fact that the previously-agreed Macquarie Point Development Plan that did respect the sight-lines of the Cenotaph has been junked, chucked out the door and Premier Rockliff’s stadium imposed here. So we’ll continue to fight against this stadium.

We’re really proud to take this action at the request of the RSL and its sub branches, because we want to see these sight lines protected. We come here every Anzac Day to lay a wreath. We know the significance of this site, and we know that the sight lines of this site have been protected for almost a century.

It’s going to be 100 years old this cenotaph next year. You know, that’s quite ironic to think that we’re having this debate about how much we value this site, how much its spiritual and sight-line significance will be protected in the very year that it has its centenary. It’s quite ironic, and it’s really disappointing to think that we are in this situation, but such is the circumstances. We would prefer any development to go through the normal planning process, to abide by the normal planning rules that have been in place for decades. And if that were the case, a Mac Point stadium would never be proposed in the first place because it is non-compliant on so many different levels.

Cassy O’Connor and Vica Bayley.