Transcript of media conference with Vica Bayley, Greens MHA for Clark, and Cassy O’Connor, Greens MLC for Hobart, Parliament Square, Hobart, 16 February 2025.

Vica Bayley

In a bombshell announcement, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation has released more documents to the Tasmanian Planning Commission in relation to their request for additional information, and it shows many things, and it raises many questions. Many of the questions of the planning commission haven’t been answered. Some have been answered really poorly, and others reveal quite telling information. And one of those is the KPMG report that looks into the finances, the economics and the business case of the stadium. And it is abundantly clear that to pay for this stadium, the Tasmanian Government is going to need to raise new taxes.

It also goes on to talk about cost benefit analysis and the fact that the government would still likely need to invest in new community infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. And it says that it would be almost certain to be a better return for the Tasmanian people if they were investing in those schools and that hospital. So this is a bombshell that shows that the Rockliff government’s assumptions when it comes to the stadium don’t stack up. We all know this is a billion dollar stadium. No one believes Premier Rockliff when he says that this can be built for $775 million and this new report demonstrates that indeed, to raise the money needed to pay for the stadium, it will involve new taxes.

Journalist – Meg Whitfield

The Liberals say that the part that you found is part of a so-called alternative scenario that KPMG developed for the report, and it’s hypothetical.

Vica Bayley

This is a business case for the stadium – and the stadium is a hypothetical in itself – but KPMG is abundantly clear that to pay for the stadium, the government will need to raise new taxes. It’s also clear that the government can if it chooses to continue to invest in community infrastructure such as schools and a hospital, but it is almost certain that the benefit to the community would be greater if it chose to spend in those schools and hospitals. And this is what we Greens have been saying all along.

Tasmanians can’t afford and don’t want a billion dollar stadium. We need housing, we need healthcare, we need investments in the education system. That’s what Tasmania needs to prosper, not a billion dollar stadium. That is the behest of the AFL and it’s really clear that this stadium untenable for before. It’s completely impossible now, and it’s incumbent upon Premier Rockliff to go back to the AFL and to renegotiate this deal. We strongly support a footy team. We know Tasmanians will get behind a footy team no matter where it plays, and it’s really clear that we can’t afford a stadium, and Tasmanians don’t want a new stadium.

Journalist – Meg Whitfield

[inaudible] not based on the assumption that KPMG support that the government will raise taxes, because the government previously said that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re relying on private investment.

Vica Bayley

That’s right, this is a catch 22 for the government. It can’t have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, the government says that it’s not going to cost any more than $375 million and the private sector will raise the rest. But on the other the experts that Macquarie Point Development Corporation are using are saying that the government will need to raise new taxes. So this is a billion dollar stadium that’s going to cost Tasmanians dearly. This report shows that Tasmanians will get better benefit from investing in new schools and a new hospital, and it’s really clear in our minds that that’s what Tasmanians would prefer.

Journalist – Ruby Cairns

The Development Corporation are also saying it’s only an interpretation, it’s hypothetical, what makes you so confident that [inaudible]

Vica Bayley

Well, look, it’s written there in black and white by the Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s own experts, KPMG, who have done the business case and the financial modelling, and it says that to pay for this stadium the government will need to raise new taxes. We can only go by what’s written. We don’t believe Premier Rockliff or the Macquarie Point Development Corporation in the first place, but now it’s written in black and white in the government’s own reports, that to pay for this stadium – that parts of other reports demonstrate is going to cost well more than $775 million – it’s going to take the government raising new taxes. So it’s a real catch 22 for the government. This is a bombshell revelation that should raise alarm bells in every single Tasmanian who would prefer the government to be investing in healthcare, in housing and in public education.

Journalist – Ruby Cairns

Are there aspects of this flurry of documents that stood out to you?

Vica Bayley

We’re still trawling through the documents, but it’s really clear, for example, the quantity surveyor the Tasmanian Planning Commission asked for additional details on the cost estimates, how the cost estimates were arrived at – and of course, that’s one of the things that we and every other Tasmanian is really interested in – but the response from the quantity surveyor is effectively to give them its CV and give them a lecture on how costings are developed over the course of a project. There are no new cost estimates delivered to meet the request of the Planning Commission.

There’s also a raft of questions that get raised in the transport and infrastructure space. We know that there are enabling bits of infrastructure, such as the northern access road, such as the Collins Street Bridge, such as the coach drop off area, that are unfunded and aren’t even part of this application, despite the fact that to effectively and safely manage the the entry and exit of patrons, they’re going to need to be developed.

This application has got many holes in it. The information that’s been put on the table in the last days by the Macquarie Point Development Corporation answers some of them. It raises more. And when it comes to the finances, it demonstrates clearly that the Rockliff government is going to have to raise new taxes to pay for this billion dollar stadium the

Tasmanian Times

The Liberals have got – well, I think the Greens have said it – an addiction to secrecy, and this seems to be another one of those situations where they’re trying to obfuscate and be a little bit too clever. What confidence can we have that if we get around to the stage of trying to do deals with private partners for certain parts of the stadium project that there will be any transparency at all about what the state of Tasmania is on the hook for?

Vica Bayley

When it comes to big infrastructure projects, Tasmanians need look no further than the Spirits debacle to recognise that we can have no confidence in the government and the way it manages these projects. Nicholas Gruen, in his independent report, said that this was mismanagement in the making, largely because the government is claiming to try to keep it to within a cost envelope. This is a significant problem.

When you get reports such as the ones that have been published recently that actually don’t answer the questions of the Planning Commission about cost estimates, when you get KPMG, highlighting that the government is going to have to raise new taxes to pay for this infrastructure and that any infrastructure spend would be better off spent on hospitals and education, Tasmanians will rightly be scratching their head, and it will deepen their skepticism, both about this project and the government’s credibility when it comes to it.

It must be said as well, where is Labor when it comes to transparency around this project, integrity when it comes to the assessment process and the information that’s put on the table? Labor has completely acquiesced to this development, and we do raise the question about where’s Labor in holding a blowtorch to the government about its claims of financial transparency and accountability and helping the Greens actually hold them to account

Journalist – Ruby Cairns

So what’s your reaction to the news from the Federal Labor government that they’ll amend environmental legislation so that salmon farming can continue in Macquarie Harbour?

Vica Bayley

This is a shameless attempt at winning votes through the extinction of a threatened species. This is the government promising to weaken already inadequate environment laws to prop up a failing industry that’s owned by multi multinational corporations in this state.

The Environment Minister, who is responsible for national environment laws, has got unequivocal advice that the single best thing that could be done to help save the Maugean skate is to remove salmon farming from Macquarie Harbour, and yet here we’ve got the Prime Minister flying in and promising even weaker environmental legislation so that salmon, artificial farmed salmon that’s polluting a pristine a waterway, including a World Heritage waterway, will take precedence over a threatened species. It’s shameless, it’s absolutely inexcusable, and for a government that said there would not be a single extinction on its watch, it’s entirely the wrong direction to be heading.

Journalist – Meg Whitfield

The Prime Minister says, says he’ll ensure there are appropriate environment laws in place to ensure a sustainable future for fish farming, are there specific elements you want to see put into the legislation?

Vica Bayley

Well, look, that’s just spin from the Prime Minister. No one should be under any illusions that that’s nothing but claptrap. The industry is not sustainable at the moment, and the laws are well known to be inadequate to protect threatened species, whether it be from salmon farming, whether it be from logging, whether it be from mining, or indeed, whether it be from climate change. So for the for the Prime Minister to say, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll ensure that our weakened environment laws will provide for sustainability of fish farming’ when it’s already not sustainable, it’s just absolute hogwash. I for parts to

Journalist – Meg Whitfield

Labor’s calling for reduction in red tape to make it easier for smaller producers to be able to process meat on their farms. What do you think about that?

Cassy O’Connor

Well, there may be some merit in that idea, because farm animals suffer enormously when they’re being transported to an abattoir. And we know slaughterhouses in Tasmania are hell pits. But if you were going to move down this path, you’d need to make sure you had very effective training in place for people who undertake that slaughter. You’d need to make sure that Biosecurity Tasmania and RSPCA were able to undertake inspections on those farms, because the primary objective here has to be to process those animals humanely.

And right now, there’s a question mark over that in Tasmanian. We’ve seen, as a result of the work of the Farm Transparency Project, that in Tasmanian abattoirs there’s enormous suffering and a lack of regulation. So we would be saying to Labor and the Liberals, if you’re going to move down this path, make sure you do it properly, and your highest order objective is high animal welfare standards.

Journalist – Meg Whitfield

How crucial is the training for the workers who would kind of be on these farms?

Cassy O’Connor

Well, it’s absolutely essential. You need to be able to slaughter an animal humanely. It’s a quite sort of specialised skill set, so you would want to make sure you’ve got really good training in place so that those animals were slaughtered humanely and quickly, and you’d need to make sure that there was the resourcing in there from government to properly monitor and inspect these operations for animal welfare standards.

Journalist – Ruby Cairns

[inaudible]

Cassy O’Connor

I think it would be good for farm producers to have the confidence that there was a monitoring and inspectorate regime to assist them, but also that there was training in place. You know, I can see why small scale producers would regard this as a more humane option, because our slaughterhouses are literally their hell pits for those suffering animals, but you got to make sure you’re training your workers and you’ve got inspectorate and monitoring regimes in place that look after the interests of those animals.

Tasmanian Times

You mentioned the Farm Transparency Project earlier, and from memory, their footage showed workers kicking animals and animals having their throats that while still conscious and so on at various abattoirs in Tasmanian. Do you think the government response to those revelations has been adequate so far?

Cassy O’Connor

No. So the Farm Transparency Project, about 18 months ago now, undertook investigations of five Tasmanian abattoirs, and they found overwhelmingly that those places are places of enormous cruelty, and we have raised this with government in Budget Estimates and in Parliament, and the response, regrettably, is somewhat dismissive. It’s a damning indictment on government as it is that we’re relying on an organisation like the Farm Transparency Project to shine a light into these places. So we would be again calling on the Tasmanian Government to properly monitor and regulate slaughterhouses in Tasmania.


Media release – Dean Winter MP, Labor Leader, 16 February 2025

Backing Tasmanian meat producers

Labor stands for safe, secure, well-paid jobs, and today we’re backing in Tasmanian meat producers.

Meat processing closures have placed enormous pressure on the local producers all over the state. We need to reform the laws that are holding producers back from innovating and value-adding to their products.

The Government’s red tape is needlessly prohibiting farmers from selling their own meat products, safely produced on-farm. It makes absolutely no sense and it needs to change.

The Southern Tasmanian Association of Meat Processors (STAMP) launched a petition in October calling for small meat producers to be able to process and their own products without needing to go to through an abattoir. I was proud to sponsor STAMP’s petition, and I’m delighted to be supporting Tasmanian farmers and producers today alongside STAMP Treasurer Matt Tack and Chef Matthew Evans.

Allowing farmers to process their own meat through mobile, on-farm processing has numerous benefits:

It eliminates unnecessary stress on livestock associated with transport, improves animal welfare, and leads to better quality meat.
It supports jobs in regional communities, supports skills and small farms by allowing the creation of new brands and lowing production costs.
It offers the chance to boost paddock to plate tourism and hospitality opportunities.
Leads to improved environmental impacts, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lower “food miles”, and more sustainable waste disposal.

Allowing farmers to process their own meat not only benefits the quality of the product and the environment but adds value to their product and allows them to create their own unique local brands. It will create a more sustainable food system – a win-win for both producers and consumers.

I want to get behind our primary producers, slash red tape and grow our economy. That’s what good Labor Governments do.