As parliamentarians prepare to consider approval for the Macquarie Point stadium, they will do so without answers to fundamental questions about the true total cost, the financial viability of the project, the impact on existing infrastructure, the consequences for public service employment and the response to planning objections.
Roland Browne’s follow-up letter to Minister Abetz points to a troubling reality – “Much critical information remains hidden from the public, and, most importantly, from members of parliament who are going to be asked to consider the proposed Order.”
For a project of this magnitude, such information gaps are not just concerning, they’re potentially disqualifying. The government’s response to Our Place’s 20 questions has revealed not just what it’s unwilling to say, but what it may be trying to hide. Until these questions receive complete, current and honest answers, any approval of the Macquarie Point stadium would be a leap in the dark with more than a billion dollars of public money.
A Crisis of Transparency in Tasmania’s Biggest Infrastructure Project
When community advocacy group Our Place Hobart submitted 20 detailed questions to the Tasmanian Government about the proposed $1.13 billion Macquarie Point Stadium in early October 2025, they expected answers. What they received instead was a masterclass in political evasion.
Of the 20 questions submitted on 6 October, most remain unanswered, leaving critical information hidden from both the public and parliamentarians who will soon be asked to approve the controversial project.
The questions that won’t go away span fundamental concerns about cost, planning and accountability for what would be Tasmania’s most expensive infrastructure project. Here’s what the government is refusing to disclose:
The stadium’s headline price of $1.13 billion raises more questions than it answers. The government has failed to clarify:
- What’s actually included in that $1.13 billion figure, and crucially, what’s excluded
- Current costs for the northern access road and underground car park (the latest estimates are at least 6 months old)
- Projected costs for these same elements at the time contracts would be signed
- Transport infrastructure expenses, including the bus interchange, road construction and Collins Street pedestrian bridge
- Site remediation costs, including decontamination and stormwater infrastructure
Question 10 asked whether the government would establish a compensation fund for workers exposed to toxins at the contaminated Macquarie Point site. The response? Silence.
This question takes on added significance given the site’s industrial history and ongoing remediation requirements.
Question 14 addressed the apparent collapse of plans to host cricket matches at the stadium. While the government provided a partial answer, the full implications remain unclear.
- How does the loss of cricket revenue affect the business case?
- What are the updated financial projections?
- When will a revised business plan be made public?
The Tasmanian Planning Commission raised two fundamental objections to the stadium:
- The building is too large for the site
- It will cause irreparable damage to Hobart’s character
Question 15 asked how the government plans to address these concerns. The answer provided? None at all.
Question 16 sought clarity on a critical financial consideration – if the Macquarie Point stadium proceeds, what happens to Bellerive and York Park? The government has not disclosed:
- The financial impact of lost revenue at existing stadiums
- The ongoing operational costs taxpayers will bear for maintaining all three venues
- Whether consolidation or closure is being considered
Several questions remain completely unanswered, including:
Q18 – Costs of affordable housing and wharf upgrades at Macquarie Point (required under the Australian Government’s $240 million contribution)
Q19 – Whether funding the stadium will require public service job cuts, how many positions would be affected and the redundancy costs
Q20 – The revised benefit-cost ratio (BCR) based on the actual $1.13 billion cost, compared to the TPC’s finding of just 0.45 for the earlier $974 million estimate
This means that for every dollar spent, the return would be just 45 cents.
That figure was based on old numbers. The project cost has since ballooned to $1.13 billion, but the government refuses to provide an updated BCR calculation. Even more concerning, the government won’t say what the ratio would be once the northern access road, underground car park, stormwater infrastructure and other excluded costs are factored in.
What We Know versus What We Don’t
Partially Answered
- Q1 – Cost estimate validity date and included components (but not excluded components)
- Q14 – Status of cricket matches (but not financial implications)
- Q17 – Compulsory acquisition of council land (partially addressed)
Completely Unanswered – Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 received no meaningful response.
Outdated Information – Questions 2 and 4 were answered with cost estimates at least six months old, rendering them effectively useless for decision-making.
This lack of transparency is particularly concerning given:
- The scale of public investment required
- The Planning Commission’s significant objections
- The project’s impact on Hobart’s heritage and character
- The long-term financial obligations for Tasmanian taxpayers
Roland Browne to Minister Abetz, 13 October 2025
Dear Minister Abetz.
I refer to the list of 20 critical questions I issued on 6 October last (which is attached).
I also refer to your letter to me of Thursday 9 October 2025, in response, also attached.
While you have answered part of Q1, Q 14 and Q 17 most questions are unanswered.
The consequence is that much critical information remains hidden from the public, and most importantly, from members of parliament who are going to be asked to consider the proposed Order.
Dear Mr Browne,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Multipurpose Stadium at Macquarie Point and your ongoing interest in this exciting project for Tasmania.
The Government has now shared a detailed response to the recent report published by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which I encourage you to read and I am writing to respond to each of the questions you have raised in your open letter of 6 October.
Some responses have been paraphrased for brevity (for example question 14 and 19).
1. From what date is the $1.13 billion project estimate valid and what precinct developments are included?
The Premier announced the updated project estimate on 17 September 2025. As was stated at the time, a major contributor to this increase is the delay in starting the project. This is the current estimate provided on the advice of quantity surveyors and is predicated on the Parliament approving the project this year in-line with the schedule outlined by the Government. If the project is further delayed, the project cost will increase.
This is the experience with all infrastructure projects in Australia when the start date is delayed. Any delay will see the costs continue to increase without any benefit to Tasmanians as the cost increase will not be the result of an expanded scope or changes to the stadium being built, just delay. We must take this opportunity to build this once-in-a generation infrastructure now.
The stadium includes connections to services on the site, and as outlined in the public hearings and shown in the landscape plans available on the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s website, it includes the public open spaces supporting the stadium, including the plaza areas in front of each of the four main gates, and the external concourse connecting these and other areas on site. This includes pedestrian spaces alongside Evans Street, and connections from the existing walkways and road to the west and future Northern Access Road.
2. What is the current estimated cost of the Northern Access Road? 3. And what is the estimated cost at the time of contract exchange?
Estimated cost of the project was included in the previous version of the State Budget tabled in Parliament this year. It included $75.9million for the Northern Access Road, which will service the Port of Hobart, Regatta Point and the broader Macquarie Point Precinct.
Like some other capital investments in the precinct, the Northern Access Road is required to activate the Macquarie Point site irrespective of the stadium proposal. It is also required for TasPorts wharf upgrades, so conflating its cost with the stadium construction is disingenuous.
The Northern Access Road was part of the Hobart City Deal signed on 24/2/19 – six years ago. It will proceed absent a stadium as will the port upgrade and decommissioning / relocation of the sewerage plant.
The project will be informed by stakeholder consultation. The estimate for the project is as noted above. All of this information is already on the public record and freely available.
4. What is the current estimated cost of the Car Park? 5. And what is the estimated cost at the time of contract exchange
As stated during the public hearing process, which I understand you attended and as set out in Technical Note 1 and in Technical Note 9 – Precinct Car Park tabled and published on the Commission’s website during the hearings, the estimated trade cost is $49M, with additional contingencies and on-costs taking this estimate to $97 million. The development of the car park is being informed by further analysis and market testing.
All of this information is already on the public record and freely available.
6. What are the estimated costs of transport infrastructure: a. bus interchange/plaza? b. road construction excluding the northern access road? c. Collins Street pedestrian bridge? d. any other road works associated with the stadium?
a. the bus plaza is part of the Northern Access Road. The cost of the bus plaza is included in the estimate for that project;
b. the project estimate for the Northern Access Road in response to your second question is already noted;
c. It is not proposed to develop the Collins Street bridge. This is a project that has been previously and separately proposed by the Hobart City Council. It is not required for this project;
d. more specificity is required to respond to this question.
All of this information is already on the public record and freely available.
7. What are the anticipated costs of stormwater infrastructure to be constructed on the site?
The proposed conditions of approval for the project include finalising the stormwater design work that is underway. These relate to the development of the full site, of which the stadium is only one part. The specific cost for that item will be shared through reporting, including, through the Public Accounts Committee.
8. What is the estimated cost of decontamination of the site? 9. How much have the reclamation works at Macquarie Point cost so far?
The development of the stadium is the first step in an exciting new stage for the precinct, as the work on site moves from remediation to redevelopment.
The physical work for the remediation of the site is complete. More can be found about remediation on the Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s website at – www.macpoint.com/remediation.
The remediation of the site has been undertaken over a number of years, details of which can be found via the above public website and link. The process included initial investigations, development of a plan for each section using expert advice, physical works, then reporting, monitoring and independent review.
Approximately $30 million has been invested in remediation of the site. As with the Northern Access Road and decommissioning of the sewerage treatment plant, this site remediation needed to occur regardless of the future precinct specifics and to suggest otherwise is either misleading or revealing of a gross bias against the stadium proposal.
10. Will the government be establishing a fund to cover the cost of possible claims for damages from workers who have been exposed to toxins through working on the Macquarie Point site?
The Macquarie Point site has been carefully remediated over a number of years. The work on site is reviewed by an independent environmental auditor with relevant certification, as required by the EPA.
There is a Site Environmental Management Plan that is provided to all contractors undertaking works on site to manage risks related to managing material on site and providing guidance and requirements on the handing of historic fill, materials and groundwater.
The physical remediation works on site has been safely managed and monitored and the outcomes are being audited to ensure it is safe for redevelopment. Reclaimed sites have been safely remediated and developed across the world. This site is no different.
The toxins did not become more toxic because of this innovative project. The work would’ve been required for the proposed Eden Project, hospital proposal or any other future use.
11. How much did the TPC integrated assessment cost? 12. And How much did the State and/or MPDC pay for lawyers and consultants for the TPC integrated assessment, including the hearings?
To date the cost of the Project of State Significance as selected by the Parliament has been approximately $5M. This includes supporting the public hearing process that proceeded during the election period, as the special purpose legislation proposed was not able to be progressed. Macquarie Point Development Corporation is still awaiting some final invoices from the TPC.
All of this information is already on the public record and freely available.
13. Excluding reclamation works at Mac Point and the POSS inquiry, how much has the government already spent on the stadium project since the Premier signed the contract with the AFL in May 2023?
The project expenditure as at the end of August 2025 is $34M. This includes the PoSS process as it is a project cost. It also includes all of the work to prepare the designs and supporting reports, respond to requests and develop the design, procurement plan, expert advice and resourcing to support the project.
14. What has happened to the plan to play cricket matches at the stadium?
Cricket remains part of the design, user and operational plan for the multipurpose stadium. As has been made clear by the CEO of Cricket Tasmania in a number of recent public statements, Cricket Tasmania want to play at this venue, and cricket remains a core part of the stadium’s design.
There are specific cricket elements that are part of the design including practice wickets featuring 16 pitches, extended internal warm-up facilities, dedicated media spaces and members’ spaces such as the Chair’s lounge.
There are regular meetings between cricket representatives and the design team and a test rig is being scoped to provide a testable space to make sure players and officials have the opportunity to experience the context of the playing environment before the specifications for the roofing material are finalised.
15. While the government has said that problems can be mitigated such as noise and lighting, how does the government plan to address the two main objections to the stadium raised by the TPC, namely that it is too large a building for the site, and it will do irreparable damage to the character of Hobart?
The premise of your question is not entirely accurate in that the TPC’s report does not explicitly say the stadium is “too large” for the site or that it will “do irreparable damage” to the character of Hobart. That said, the Government’s Response, which addresses each of these matters, speaks for itself. Importantly, all the practical elements of the proposal are accepted as ‘doable’. The Government does not accept the subjective assertions of size and alleged ‘irreparable damage’.
16. What are the estimated financial impacts on the ongoing business operations of the Bellerive and York Park stadia due to revenue lost to the proposed Macquarie Point stadium? i.e. what will the additional annual financial costs to the Tasmanian taxpayers be of continuing to operate both of these existing stadia in addition to the Macquarie Point stadium?
Stadiums Tasmania manages our major stadiums across the state. The revenue forecasts and benefits modelled for the Multipurpose Stadium have considered the cost of larger events transferring to the new fit for purpose multipurpose stadium.
The future offerings at Ninja Stadium (Bellerive) will be informed by the capacity of the venue, the condition of the assets available to service it and the suite of events being delivered and usage at a whole of state level. This will very likely include events that the venue is currently unable to host due to usage requirements of current tenants.
In anticipation of increased use of York Park both Federal and State Governments have contributed funding towards the stadium’s $130m redevelopment which is currently underway.
17. What is the estimated cost of the required compulsory acquisition of Hobart City Council-owned land at Macquarie Point?
There is no Hobart City Council land being compulsorily acquired as part of the Macquarie Point project site. The Corporation has been liaising with Council regarding the purchase of a very small parcel of land adjacent to the road. The cost is estimated at around
$14,000. There may need to be some additional land purchases to support the Northern Access Road and bus plaza. Options for the design of this infrastructure are currently being finalised in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
18. What are the estimated costs associated with (a) affordable housing and (b) wharf upgrades at Macquarie Point, noting that both of these developments are required as part of the Australian Government’s contribution of $240 million for the site?
The Mac Point Precinct Plan approved in September 2024 is one of the milestones already met as part of the funding agreement with the Australian Government.
The Plan sets out the area allocated for a residential development to the north, which includes affordable housing for health workers. It is noted the Precinct Plan has been accepted by the Australian Government.
The residential development will be delivered through a market process, it is not intended to be delivered by the Government. This is a development opportunity for investment.
The inclusion of affordable housing as part of that development has been tested through market sounding and was supported.
There is a separate agreement to progress the upgrades to the wharf at the Port of Hobart. The funding agreement for Macquarie Point requires that a separate agreement is in place.
You can find the details on the funding agreement at http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/agreements/macquarie-point-urban redevelopment
19. With the Government refusing to consider raising additional taxes to fund construction and operation of the new stadium, will paying for the stadium require budget savings through sacking of Tasmanian public servants?
The budgeting process is an annual process. The Government’s investment in the Multipurpose Stadium will be spread over a number of years. It does not impact the ongoing investment in services.
20. Given the TPC found a BCR of only of .45 for a $775 million dollar stadium costed by the MPDC at $974 million but which the Premier only revealed post the TPC report would now cost $1.13 billion, how much lower is the return, using TPC metrics, based on $1.13 billion?
The Government’s Response to the Commission’s report deals with this issue (p18).
In addition to your questions, I encourage you to visit the following places to find further information on the project:
• The Government’s Response to the Commission’s report – available at www.tas.gov.au/dpac/macquarie-point-multipurpose-stadium.
• Information on the Mac Point Precinct Plan (www.macpoint.com/precinct-plan) and Multipurpose Stadium project (www.macpoint.com/stadium-poss-application-1)
• Information submitted to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, including technical notes, plans, reports and evidence presented at the hearings – available at www.planninq.tas.gov.au/assessments-and-hearinqsicurrent-assessments-and hearings/macquarie-point-multipurpose-stadium-integrated-assessment
Yours sincerely,
Eric Abetz
Minister for Macquarie Point Urban Renewal
Treasurer
Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation 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 … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.
