On Monday 30 June 2025 there was a video that was posted on the platform X (Twitter) by a Tasmanian sports journalist (WIN, SEN) showing a fly though of the Macquarie Point stadium.

Indeed, it was a very glossy promotional style video with a voiceover.

Here’s a new fly-through of what the proposed Macquarie Point Stadium would look like inside the venue…

📽️: Macquarie Point Development Corporation pic.twitter.com/4wqiRJLTQy

— Brent Costelloe (@brentcostelloe) June 30, 2025

It immediately raised concerns – at least to my mind – that the publication of this video may well be in breach of the caretaker conventions for government during an election.

Another sports journalist pointed out the video was part of the submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) Project of State Significance hearing and, therefore, publicly available. He also pointed to the fact that the hearings had continued after the TPC had said they were not restricted by the caretaker provisions.

Ok fair enough … but here’s the thing: the video did not appear to be published on the TPC website.

After an email exchange with the TPC it was revealed that the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) had published the video to their website themselves. In fact, it turns out they had also published it to their YouTube channel.

As Monday wore on it wasn’t just the Tassie journalist that had posted the video but multiple football entities and others: the AFL, the Head of AFL Tasmania, the CEO of Tasmania Football Club and more.  The video has been seen on a number of social media platforms.

Damian Gill (AFL Tasmania) posted this comment with the video: “It is hard not to get swept up watching this video from the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. You can just imagine the buzz in the air as you walk in for a @FC_Tasmania game day or for a concert. This will be truly transformative for our beautiful state. Bring it on.”

While Brendon Gale, CEO of Tasmania FC posted: “Not just a stadium. A statement!”

That brings us to caretaker conventions, i.e. what is accepted practice and behaviour of government entitites during an election period.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet released guidelines for Caretaker Conventions during the State Election 2025. As a government business enterprise the MPDC is expected to adhere to these guidelines: it is specifically listed on p.36 of the guidelines as an entity to which they apply.

Of specific note is this paragraph from the guidelines:

1.11 There are also established conventions and practices associated with the caretaker conventions that are directed at:

  • protecting the apolitical nature of the State Service
  • preventing controversies about the role and work of the State Service during an election campaign
  • avoiding the use of government resources in a manner to advantage a particular party.

So has the MPDC breached the caretaker guidelines?

Let’s break it down and have a look at these specific points:

protecting the apolitical nature of the State Service – there can be no doubt that the stadium is political and far from apolitical. It has been among the top five Tasmanian political issues of the last few years along with health, Commission of Inquiry, Spirits and the overall state budget.

preventing controversies about the role and work of the State Service during an election campaign – again, unless you can ignore rallies that bring thousands of protesters to Parliament Lawns, there is no doubt the stadium is controversial. I’d also suggest that posting a ‘glossy promotional’ video that casts the stadium in such a positive light despite caretaker convention is controversial

avoiding the use of government resources in a manner to advantage a particular party – this one is the kicker. There is no doubt in my mind that the publication of this video has the potential to influence the election and be advantageous to those candidates or parties who support the stadium.
That it has been widely distributed with gushing comment by AFL entities and pro-stadium journalists further supports this argument. In effect, various entities and journos have promoted the stadium in a very positive light and, as such, this is advantageous electorally for those candidates and parties who support the stadium. Almost every party and candidate contesting the election has a stadium policy; some are for, some against.

So is the Macquarie Point Development Corporation in breach of the caretaker conventions (and guidelines) or is it a case of nothing to see here?

You be the judge.

Will M is a Tasmanian political observer.

The concourse is very similar to those of the David Boon and Ricky Ponting stands at Bellerive Oval. The main difference is that Bellerive is already paid for while this will cost the State of Tasmania around $2B at current guesstimates in capital expenditure, supporting infrastructure and debt repayment. The opportunity cost of losing other, potentially more socially beneficial, uses of the site is not costed in.

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

New initiatives on the way include:

  • a weekly podcast covering current affairs
  • a revamped website
  • a monthly cartoon competition
  • a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
  • a weekly roundup of key stories