Politicians have quite a few tricks for evading the question or gilding the lily. Sadly, it’s what we’ve come to expect. But recent commentary following the recent release of Dr Gruen’s report on Macquarie Point stadium costs and benefits has reached a new low.

Premier Rockliff started the ball rolling. His contribution was to note that “Mr Gruen’s report was commissioned on behalf of the Jacqui Lambie Network, which has always opposed the stadium, and it’s his opinion.”

Sadly, it’s common practice to denigrate the integrity of the messenger, rather than analyse the message.

Had Rockliff wanted to make a serious accusation of bias by Dr Gruen, the mature approach would have been to submit his report to the Treasury for peer review.

No chance, apparently, in today’s environment of bluff and bluster.

Former Premier Gutwein’s contribution took a different tack. His approach was to note that “You provide me two different economists, and I’m certain they can provide two different opinions.”

The problem for him is that there have now been not two but three economic analyses of the stadium’s economics. The first two, commissioned by the Department of State Growth, were provided by respected consulting firms – Price Waterhouse Coopers and KPMG. No suggestion of bias there.

Unfortunately for Gutwein’s thesis, all three economic analyses are in broad agreement.:In each case, costs outweigh the benefits by a significant amount. The benefit to cost ratio is significantly less than one.

That social costs exceed social benefits doesn’t mean that private investors might not be keen to invest in it. Attractiveness to investors depends on the contract terms offered by the proponent. It may be necessary to offer a guaranteed rate of return, for instance. While a public-private partnership takes project finance ‘off the books’ the social costs remain.

In Dr Gruen’s case, the stadium is projected to yield only 44 cents of social benefit for every dollar of costs.

Put another way, the present value of total costs exceeds total benefits by $1380 for every Tasmanian. Do Tasmanians really want to incur those costs at the expense of other uses of public funds?

Most of us want an AFL team, but is it worth that much?

Economist Saul Eslake’s recent report on the State of Tasmania’s finances has also received cavalier treatment.

Shortly after its release, Minister Ferguson said that, after careful thought, a more fulsome response would be provided in the annual budget. Most readers don’t have patience to follow the train of thought, but the budget’s response is revealing, if surprisingly brief. It notes that the Eslake recommendations are consistent with the government’s fiscal strategy.

One Eslake recommendation is to weed out projects for which social costs clearly exceed social benefits. In other words, ditch those with benefit-cost ratios less significantly than one. That objective is mirrored in the fiscal strategy. Infrastructure projects worth more than $50m should meet the BCA criterion.

So the recommendation and the strategy are, indeed, consistent. But that’s small comfort if the government has no intention of implementing it.

Action speak louder than words. The Macquarie Point project is clearly inconsistent with the strategy.

It’s a hallmark of poor public policy to claim, as Rockliff did in the face of a series of expert analyses, that ‘we know it stacks up’.

As this controversy is being played out, the Planning Commission is pushing on with its own analysis of the project. Costs seem to be rising with every passing month, so it is hard to see the TPC coming to a much more positive conclusion than the three studies cited earlier.

Decision-makers on all sides of politics might want to anticipate this result, and how they will react to it.

Is it wise to commit more public funds in advance of the TPC report, and parliament’s vote? Or is the current strategy designed to ensure that the project will have passed the point of no return?

As the saying goes, when you’re stuck in a hole, stop digging. Perhaps it’s time to put the spade away and take Dr Gruen’s recommendations seriously.

Dr Graeme Wells is an independent economist, having previously had an academic career in New Zealand, North America and, more recently, as Associate Professor at ANU and UTAS. Since returning to lutruwita/Tasmania he has been a consultant and adviser to a range of private sector and government agencies.