Article
MPs Challenge AFL Over Stadium Blackmail Claims
Cassy O’Connor MLC, Vica Bayley MHA, Kristie Johnston MHA & Peter George MHA
AFL Stadium Opposition Meeting – Media Briefing
Date: Wednesday, 29 October 2025
On 29 October 2025, four Tasmanian parliamentarians representing 18 elected officials travelled to Melbourne reportedly at their own expense to meet with AFL executives and challenge the controversial Macquarie Point stadium condition attached to Tasmania’s AFL team licence. The meeting came only after multiple attempts to secure a dialogue—including two unanswered letters and several emails—with a final email sent on the morning of 29 October stating the delegation would arrive at midday “come what may” finally prompting the AFL to agree to meet.
The cross-party delegation—Greens members Vica Bayley and Cassie O’Connor, and independents Kristie Johnston and Peter George—sought to renegotiate the AFL’s requirement for a $2 billion roofed stadium as a prerequisite for the Tasmanian Devils’ entry into the national competition.
The meeting followed an emphatic rejection of the stadium by the Tasmanian Planning Commission after a year-long independent assessment. The Commission found the development would have irreversible negative impacts on Hobart’s character, the state’s budget and culturally significant sites including the Cenotaph war memorial and areas of Aboriginal significance.
The parliamentarians argued that Tasmania’s existing stadiums—Bellerive Oval (17,000 capacity) and York Park (currently being upgraded)—are adequate for the Devils, and that the state cannot afford the estimated $50 million annual debt servicing costs whilst facing a budget crisis affecting health, education, and housing services.
With votes scheduled in the House of Assembly on 14 November and the Legislative Council in December’s second week, the fate of both stadium and team hangs in the balance. Whilst the Liberal government and Labour opposition support the stadium, the crossbench holds significant influence, particularly in the upper house where independents control the balance of power.
The AFL, represented by COO Tom Harley and other executives, maintained its position – no stadium, no team. The parliamentarians remain committed to voting against the stadium whilst advocating for the Devils to play at existing venues.
The following transcript documents the media conferences held immediately before and after the meeting with AFL executives.
Post-Meeting Press Conference
Vica Bayley:
That was a constructive and productive and very civil meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to talk to the AFL COO and other executive members, including those involved with the Devils team. It was a pretty frank exchange of views and ideas and perspectives. And as I say, we appreciate that opportunity.
We don’t resile from our position that the stadium is a net negative for Tasmania. Indeed, we put the position that we believe the stadium at Macquarie Point is now a net negative for both the Devils and the AFL in terms of its brand and the success measures of the team.
The stadium may have sounded like a good idea to put into a deal in May 2023 when that deal was signed, but since then, it is clear that community sentiment has grown against the stadium, and it is clear now that expert after expert, including the Tasmanian Planning Commission, has said that the stadium should not be built.
So whilst we acknowledge the AFL has anchored to its position of “no stadium, no team,” we don’t believe that’s a tenable position. We don’t believe that’s a fair position. We know that Tasmania has long deserved a team. There is no national competition—let’s be frank—without a Tasmanian team. And so we put the proposition that the onus is on the AFL to accept that Tasmanian Planning Commission report and renegotiate the terms of the licence conditions for the Devils team.
Journalist: So what did they actually say when you pushed them?
Vica Bayley:
Well, look, I’ll let the AFL speak for themselves in terms of their position. I will acknowledge that they anchored back to their position of “no stadium, no team.” I think that’s probably as far as I want to go in terms of articulating their position, but it was a frank conversation about what they think it takes to deliver a successful football team.
We put our perspective that may have been the view three years ago when the AFL Licence Agreement was signed, and it may have been the position when the AFL pointed at Macquarie Point and said, “We’ll have a stadium there, thanks very much, and it must be for 23,000 people and have a roof.”
But clearly things have shifted since then. Clearly public sentiment has shifted since then. Clearly stakeholder sentiment has shifted since then. Two of the AFL’s most cherished stakeholders—Aboriginal people and veterans—are vehemently opposed to the stadium. And clearly the expert planners who assessed this development and have recommended it not go ahead have changed that perspective.
We know Tasmanians don’t want this stadium, and one thing that Tasmanians don’t like is corporations riding roughshod over community interests. We have a budget crisis, we’ve got spiralling debt, we’ve got a whole raft of issues, and we also have two existing stadiums where AFL is played. So we put the perspective very clearly, as reflected in the taskforce report, that a team should be stood up. It should play in the national competition. It should play in the existing stadiums.
Journalist: How did the AFL react to that?
Vica Bayley:
The AFL said really clearly that it is their position, that their position hasn’t changed. Clearly, they probably have a different perspective of how you would characterise it, but we stand by the perspective that insisting that a state that is already verging on broke, has some of the lowest literacy outcomes, healthcare outcomes, and housing outcomes, should build a $2 billion stadium at a specific site, against the expert advice—it’s really clear from our perspective that that is blackmail and that shouldn’t be its position.
Journalist: And if that’s the case, then what happens?
Vica Bayley:
That’s the AFL’s position. I’m happy to vote against it. We’ll vote against it. We’ll vote against the stadium. That is really clear. And we think that when push comes to shove, when the rubber hits the road, if the parliament and the democratic function of Tasmania says that we shouldn’t have this stadium because that’s the expert advice and we can’t afford it, we would hope there would be people playing a constructive role within the AFL to take up the challenge of renegotiating the deal so that we do have a team to play in the competition, and it plays in the existing stadiums where the North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Hawks already play.
Journalist: What are the capacities of the existing stadiums?
Vica Bayley:
They’re less than 23,000 people. My understanding is Bellerive is 17,000, and York Park is undergoing an upgrade at the moment, specifically so it can meet the needs of the AFL, because the proposition is to play four games in Launceston and only seven games at Macquarie Point. So our view is very clearly that the Tasmanian Devils can play in the existing stadiums. We deserve a team, and those facilities should be used for the commencement of the team.
Journalist: What’s your level of optimism?
Vica Bayley:
Well, my level of optimism is that the Tasmanian parliament will do the right thing, will listen to expert advice, and will vote against the stadium, because that’s what the expert Planning Commission has said. This is a stadium that has been imposed by the AFL two and a half or three years ago when it identified this site, and a lot has changed since then, including a detailed planning assessment that says that the site is inappropriate for a stadium such as that and that it will have negative impacts on our city and the welfare of Tasmanians as a whole.
So my optimism is that the parliament rejects the stadium, and that helps to force the AFL’s hand to recognise that there is a lot of support for the Devils. There’s nationwide support for the Devils entering the national competition because we don’t actually truly have a national competition without a Tasmanian team, and that people in the AFL step up and play a constructive role to renegotiate this agreement.
Journalist: Will this influence how you vote?
Vica Bayley:
It won’t influence how I would vote. I can’t speak for other colleagues, but I guess it begs the question: if so much is hanging on a stadium such as this, which is tenuous at best, given the expert advice that it shouldn’t be built, the Tasmanian Devils and the AFL would be wise to hold off on those decisions.
But we hope they appoint a coach. We want a team. We’ve seen some of the benefits the team can deliver to Tasmania even without a stadium and even without a team in the national competition. There’s a lot of love for the Devils and a lot of support for the Devils, including from those who are opposed to the stadium. That’s why our message on behalf of our constituents to the AFL was: we think the Devils can work without this stadium. In fact, we think this stadium will have a long-term corrosive impact on the Devils’ success and indeed the branding of the AFL.
Journalist: Do you think you have enough political capital in the upper house to block this vote?
Vica Bayley:
Look, the evidence is clear. Every independent expert who has had a look at this stadium—whether it be Professor Nicholas Gruen or this multi-member expert panel of the Planning Commission—has said it should not be built. Its benefits are overstated, its costs are understated. It’s going to have a negative impact on some really important values that Tasmanians cherish, including the state war memorial and values that Aboriginal people cherish.
These are two stakeholder groups that the AFL holds in high regard and holds dedicated rounds to celebrate. Under what other circumstance would a state’s war memorial be desecrated by a large industrial development? It just wouldn’t happen. So I’m optimistic that the upper house can vote against this stadium, and I’m optimistic that that will trigger a rethink in the AFL and a renegotiation of the deal so that we can get the team that we deserve without needing to build a third stadium in Tasmania.
Journalist: Who was at the meeting?
Vica Bayley:
We met with Tom Harley and a couple of executives. My understanding is Andrew Dillon is in the north of the country doing other work. And look, we accept that position from the senior executive within the AFL. We were coming on this day, we told the AFL we were coming on this day, and so we absolutely accept that he’s a legitimate and credible person for us to be talking to.
So we’re not quibbling about who the AFL has put in front of us, and we’re not, in fact, quibbling about the conversation. We had a really constructive, valuable exchange of perspectives and ideas, but we agreed to disagree. The AFL has anchored to its position. We think that’s an unreasonable position, and we’ll continue to campaign within our community, and indeed within the Tasmanian parliament, to stop the stadium so that we think it can trigger a rethink in the AFL and a renegotiation of the deal.
Journalist: So you think it’s realistic—not optimistic, but realistic—that this could be blocked in the upper house?
Vica Bayley:
It’s absolutely realistic that it could be blocked in the upper house. The major parties, Labour and Liberal, are supporting this deal. The Labour Party has written a blank cheque for the Liberal Party, irrespective of the budget impacts and irrespective of the expert planning advice. Sadly, we feel the Labour Party is abrogating its responsibility and have written a blank cheque for the Liberal government.
But there are independents in the upper house. We have an institution in Tasmania’s parliament that cherishes independence in the upper house and non-major party members, and there is absolutely a chance that it gets blocked in the upper house.
Journalist: Given your support for the team, what are the challenges if it passes?
Vica Bayley:
One of the conversations we had with the AFL was about the challenges that people will face if the order does pass through the upper house. It’s not only building on that site—a constrained site with known toxic contaminant issues and other challenges. It’s not only the budgetary challenges that this stadium is facing in terms of the inevitable cost blowout. We’ve had four cost blowouts, well over a billion dollars.
But it’s the ongoing opposition of the Tasmanian people. Tasmanians don’t take being lectured to by corporates from interstate and being dictated to. We know that Tasmanians have, time and time again, stood up against big toxic projects that are seen to pervert proper process. I guess we had a frank conversation with the AFL that that would be our prediction: that we won’t stop fighting this stadium, that other Tasmanians won’t stop fighting, and that’s part of the reason it’ll have a toxic and corrosive impact on the brand and success of the Devils and ultimately on the AFL itself.
Journalist: Will you abide by the umpire’s decision?
Vica Bayley:
From my perspective, the umpire’s decision is the Tasmanian Planning Commission, who has recommended that it should not be built. The Tasmanian Planning Commission was stood up, and the panel was stood up by the Tasmanian Parliament as part of the project of state significance process that overrode all the normal planning rules. It could have assessed and approved the stadium irrespective of the fact that it breached longstanding planning conventions and impacted on things like the state war memorial.
But such is the toxicity, such are the problems associated with this site and what is proposed on the site, that the Planning Commission unequivocally recommended that it be refused.
Tasmanians have a long history of standing up against perverted process, and I would see a successful vote through the Tasmanian parliament, despite the expert advice of the Planning Commission and with the AFL effectively blackmailing parliamentarians that there is no team without a stadium—I would see that as an illegitimate outcome. And yes, I would still continue to oppose the stadium, as I think thousands of Tasmanians would.
Journalist: Are you alleging misconduct somewhere along the lines within the Liberal Party? You say they’re being blackmailed, and then you’re saying this has been a perverted process. So is the Liberal Party, the government in Tasmania, upholding a perverted process? Is that what you’re saying?
Vica Bayley:
Look, I think there’s a lot of concern about the Liberal Party’s proposition, pushing ahead with this stadium despite community opposition and expert advice. There’s deep concern about the Labour Party’s position, writing a blank cheque for the Liberal Party. Am I alleging corruption or other malfeasance? No, but I think both those parties are abrogating their responsibility to act in the interests of Tasmanians.
We have a spiralling budget crisis. We cannot already deliver on the health, housing, and education needs of Tasmanians. We’ve got two stadiums where great AFL footy is already played. It is clear that we can have a team without the impost of a billion-dollar stadium at Macquarie Point, where the experts have said it won’t fit and it will have impacts on other values that are important to stakeholders that the AFL cherishes.
Peter George:
May I just quickly answer your question? If the Legislative Council votes to pass through the process, I will stick by my constituents who overwhelmingly elected me in the southeast of Tasmania on a very strong anti-stadium platform. I would not give up on my constituents, who would expect me and would hold me to account for my undertaking to object to and vote against the stadium and act against the stadium, no matter what the outcome of the parliament is. That’s what an elected representative is expected to do.
My belief is that the AFL, having spent since June actually getting around to agreeing to a meeting with the crossbenchers, will rethink its position in the same way that it rethought meeting with crossbenchers. And if the vote goes against the stadium in the upper house, then the AFL will rethink its position and consider the possibility of no stadium but yes for the Tasmanian Devils. That would be the sensible outcome.
Journalist: The cold, hard reality since the meeting—you’ve clarified now—is no stadium, no team, or team and a stadium. What’s your position? Just to be clear, out of those two options, because they’re the only two options that we have right now.
Vica Bayley:
Well, I don’t accept that those are the only two positions. Of course, the AFL has anchored back to its position. Whilst the Labour Party is writing a blank cheque for the Liberals, why would it shift? So I think what needs to move is—what it will take for the AFL to move is the Tasmanian Parliament rejecting the stadium. And I believe that’s a possibility.
We know there is overwhelming emotional, moral, and other support for a Tasmanian team. Some of the greatest champions have come from Tasmania. There is no national competition without Tasmania as part of it. And we have two stadiums where AFL has long been played. There is no reason why AFL Devils men’s and women’s teams can’t enter the competition and continue to play in the existing stadiums.
The Devils’ own submission says that the difference between its financial success in a scenario without a stadium versus with the Macquarie Point stadium is in the vicinity of $5.4 to $5.9 million. Now, in the context of a footy team and the hundreds of millions of dollars that it takes to sustain that over years, $6 million a year is peanuts to pay. And then you match that with the $50 million impost that this will put annually on the Tasmanian people—I think that’s a small price to pay.
Journalist: Was Brendan Gale in the meeting?
Vica Bayley:
No, Brendan wasn’t. No one, no representative directly from the Devils, was there.
Journalist: When is the vote going to take place in parliament?
Vica Bayley:
A vote in the House of Assembly, in the lower house, will take place on November 14th, and in the upper house in the second week of December.
Pre-Meeting Press Conference
Vica Bayley (Greens Member for Hobart):
So we thought we’d just go one at a time, and then I’ll answer questions at the end, if you want, and then we’ll come out again after we’re done. Vica Bayley, Greens member for Hobart. Look, we four elected representatives are here on behalf of 18 elected representatives in Tasmania who signed a letter to the AFL seeking this meeting to talk about the unfair stadium condition in the Devils’ licence agreement. Signatories to that letter included everyone from local mayors to members of the Tasmanian parliament from both houses, senators, and the independent member for Clark in Federal Parliament—a wide cross-section of people representing their constituents who overwhelmingly oppose a stadium at Macquarie Point.
Poll after poll has shown that Tasmanians don’t want, don’t need, and can’t afford a stadium at Macquarie Point. We want today to represent those views to the AFL and make sure they understand the views of our constituents, because we feel they have been failed by Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff, who signed a deal with the AFL for a $2 billion stadium at Macquarie Point in exchange for a Tasman Devils team. Despite the escalating budget crisis in Tasmania, he has failed to do anything to renegotiate this deal.
We’re also here in the wake of an exhaustive year-long independent planning process by the expert panel, which, after taking evidence, public hearings and submissions from the community, came up with an emphatic rejection of the stadium, saying it should not be built.
We believe it’s a fundamental and extreme corporate overreach for the AFL to be insisting that Tasmania build a billion-dollar stadium at Macquarie Point in exchange for a licence for the Devils’ footy team. I want to make it 100% clear: we are strongly in support of a Devils footy team in Tasmania. We want an AFLW and an AFL men’s team to play in the National League. Let’s face it, there is no national league without Tasmania playing because we are a long and proud footy state, and we are strong supporters of a Devils footy team.
But no other team and no other state has had to incur the cost burden and the impacts to its cityscape of a billion-dollar stadium that we don’t need. We’ve got two stadiums in Tasmania where football is already played—one in the south, one in the north—and the AFL is insisting we build this new roofed stadium at Macquarie Point, against expert advice, simply for seven games a year. It’s completely untenable, it’s completely reckless, and we’re here to tell the AFL on behalf of our constituents that they need to renegotiate the licence agreement.
Cassie O’Connor (Greens Member for Hobart, Legislative Council):
My name is Cassie O’Connor. I’m the Greens member for the electorate of Hobart. We’re from Tasmania, and we’re here to help the AFL make the right decision about us being able to keep our team, the Devils, without the enormous burden that stadium would place on our state. My city of Hobart overwhelmingly does not support this stadium. Tasmanians and the people of Hobart know it will lead to higher taxes, service cuts, and job cuts in the state service.
I’m also a member of the Legislative Council, and ultimately it will be the upper house of Tasmania that decides the fate of the stadium once the order to approve the stadium makes its way through Parliament. My colleagues in the Legislative Council, my independent colleagues, feel somewhat blackmailed by the AFL. We’re being told: if you reject this stadium, you won’t have your team.
Well, Tasmania deserves this team. We’ve earned the right to be in the National League. We’ve given some of our best and brightest to the AFL. Our message to the AFL: treat us fairly. Stop this corporate bastardry. Listen to the people of Tasmania and do not insist on a stadium that will break our state. We simply cannot afford it. The risk here for the AFL is that the Devils—a team that we’ve longed for and deserve—will become something that divides us rather than unites us, and that’s what we think the AFL should be thinking very clearly about today and in the weeks ahead.
Kristie Johnston (Independent Member for Clark):
Hello, I am Kristie Johnston, the independent member for Clark—Kristie, K-R-I-S-T-I-E Johnston, J-O-H-N-S-T-O-N. I’m here today to represent my southern electorate based in Hobart, who are appalled at the terrible deal the Tasmanian Government have done with the AFL. The AFL can no longer claim ignorance. We have the Tasmanian Planning Commission Report, which is emphatic: this is a bad deal for Tasmanians. The stadium will ruin Tasmania, and we should not go ahead with it.
The AFL cannot claim they don’t understand the consequences. They need to make sure they are not holding us to an unconscionable deal. If they hold us to this deal, they will be putting Tasmanians at risk, not just now, but in the future.
This week, we see in Tasmania teachers striking. We know there are cuts to our health system. We know there are cuts to our TAFE system. Tasmania is in crisis budget-wise, but this team issue is also incredibly divisive. We want our team. We do not need the stadium. It will be unconscionable if the AFL holds us to a deal, knowing full well the consequences for Tasmania and Tasmanians, not just now, but for future generations.
Peter George (Independent Member for Franklin):
My name is Peter George. I’m the independent member for Franklin, voted in this year. I do not want the Tasman Devils—the team that Tasmanians have been looking forward to for so many years—to be the cause of such division in Tasmania. And let me tell you, the AFL stadium and its plans that will bankrupt our state are incredibly divisive.
I can tell you that I received more votes in the south of the state than any other candidate. The question I was asked most frequently was: do you support an AFL stadium? My answer was always no, I’m afraid not. It’s the wrong place, wrong time, wrong cost, and it’s unnecessary. Nine out of ten times on door knocks, in the streets, and at public events, people said, “Good, I’ll vote for you, but give us a team.” That’s what we’re here to do today. We’re here to make sure that this appallingly costly, unnecessary stadium does not go ahead, but that Tasmanians get the Devils team they deserve.
Q&A Session
Journalist: Could you just remind us—it’s a complicated state of play in the parliament. Labour supports building the stadium, the Liberal government supports building the stadium, and the crossbench, you guys, are opposed. Can you just explain that simply for us?
Vica Bayley:
Yes. The deal with the AFL by Jeremy Rockliff—without reference to Treasury, without reference to his own cabinet, and without reference to the community—and the AFL’s insistence on building this stadium, come what may, effectively blackmailing parliamentarians with “no stadium, no team,” has pushed the Labour Party into effectively writing a blank cheque for the government to pass this stadium no matter what, despite the budget crisis, despite the Planning Commission’s findings.
The last election returned the same outcome in the Tasmanian parliament: 14 Liberal members, 10 Labour members, 11 on the crossbench. So Labour plus the Liberals in the Lower House, where three of us sit, have the numbers to pass this. That’s why all eyes are on the Legislative Council, where my colleague Cassie O’Connor sits, and the independents hold the balance of power. There are several key independents who are yet to declare their hand.
Journalist: You keep using the word blackmail. How can it be blackmail when the AFL has been so transparent from the get-go: no stadium, no team? But you keep talking about how you still want the team. The AFL has been quite upfront by saying no stadium, no team.
Vica Bayley:
Well, no other team in the league and no other state has had to go to these lengths to build a brand-new stadium on a brownfield site.
Journalist: Do you concede the AFL has been upfront—no stadium, no team?
Vica Bayley:
The AFL has been consistent. We’re not expecting to change the AFL’s mind today in this meeting about that position, but it’s really clear what question we want to ask the AFL. They tried to pick a winner. They pointed at Macquarie Point. They said, “We want a stadium there. We want 23,000 seats, and it must have a roof.”
We’ve now gone through a year-long planning process—community consultation, expert hearings—and that expert panel, including a planner and a lawyer, said you should not build that stadium. So we’re here to ask the AFL: in the face of community opposition, in the face of the expert recommendation from the planning tribunal that this stadium should not be built in the location that the AFL is insisting, we need to ask the AFL to explain to us why it is appropriate that condition remain.
We have two stadiums in Tasmania where footy is already played. We’ve got Bellerive, and we’ve got York Park, where we’ve got one of the best playing surfaces in the country. They’re only going to play seven games at Macquarie Point and four at York Park. So all of this conflict, $2 billion of debt to Tasmania’s bottom line over ten years, is all about seven games of football in Hobart. We’re here to ask the AFL—tell the AFL—that we think that’s an exorbitant price for Tasmanians to pay.
We’re here to say we think it’s a remarkable corporate overreach of the AFL insisting that this is the case, and we’re here to ask them to reconsider their position. I acknowledge they’ve had a position that has been anchored to “no stadium, no team,” but we’re here to tell them that in the face of the Planning Commission’s report—that it’s going to have irreversible impacts on the character of Hobart, that it’s going to add $2 billion of debt to Tasmania’s budget—this stadium is now reckless and untenable.
Two of the AFL’s most cherished stakeholders—Aboriginal people and veterans—are vehemently opposed to this stadium because of the impact it will have on their values at Macquarie Point and the Cenotaph. Those issues are not under contention. It will impact on those values. So we’re here to put questions on behalf of those stakeholders and on behalf of our constituents.
Let me be clear: we don’t expect Andrew Dillon to walk out tomorrow and say we have changed our position, but it’s incumbent upon us as elected representatives to bring forward the view of our constituents to the AFL because we believe the Premier, the Labour Party, and others who have consistently cheered this project along have failed in their responsibility.
Journalist: Did their primary vote not go up?
Vica Bayley:
Well, no, it didn’t. For the Liberal Party, it did. But this is no longer about that.
Peter George:
Let me say that during the election campaign, Liberal and Labour dumped the stadium into the background. It was only the independents and the Greens who kept that going, and we all increased our vote. So let me say I would not resile—this is blackmail. Tasmanians deserve a team, and they’re told they can only have a team if we build a stadium that will bankrupt the state. That’s blackmail.
Vica Bayley:
The polls on this issue have been consistent, with the majority of people in Tasmania opposed to the stadium. But put aside popularity. The question now is: we had an expert planning panel convened by the state’s Planning Commission say that it’s going to have an irreversible impact on our budget, on our welfare, on our city. In the face of that kind of advice, the AFL continuing to insist that this stadium be built is simply reckless corporate overreach.
Journalist: How do you think your constituents will respond if the AFL walks away?
Vica Bayley:
We don’t believe that’s the case. We’ve got a strong and proud footy history in Tasmania. We’ve got two grounds where AFL-level football has been played for well over a decade now, with a lot of success. We simply don’t believe—and that’s why we’re here—we’re here to ask the AFL to relinquish its condition that the stadium needs to be built for us to get a team.
We’ve got a team. We’ve already got a club. It’s recruiting players, it’s getting draft picks, it’s going great guns, and we’re strong supporters of it. I signed up as a member. But it is clear in the face of our budget crisis, and it is clear in the face of the expert advice from the Planning Commission that the stadium should not be built, that the AFL needs to rethink its condition, and we’re here to put that proposition to them.
Journalist: (Question about economic benefits)
Vica Bayley:
We go back to the expert Planning Commission’s assessment, which basically says that this will cost Tasmania far more than it delivers, that this will diminish the overall welfare of Tasmanians. This is a massive project. It’s going to cost us $50 million a year just to service the debt for this kind of proposal. So there are a whole range of things you can do with that kind of money.
Yes, of course, there are a range of other facilities in this stadium that may or may not get utilised to the extent that the government claims. But the experts who have looked at this—whether it be independent Professor Nicholas Gruen or the Planning Commission—have consistently said that the government is overstating the benefits and understating the costs.
Literally, the day that the Planning Commission’s report was released, the Premier announced to Tasmania that the cost had gone out by another $400 million just like that. And we know that’s not the end of it. No one expects this to be a $1.13 billion project. It’s on a highly constrained site. It’s a toxic site, highly contaminated. And we know this is going to cost a lot.
Journalist: If the AFL doesn’t change its position—so no stadium, no team—will you still be moving to block the vote in parliament, essentially getting rid of the team completely?
Vica Bayley:
We’ll be voting no to the stadium. That is our position. That’s the position we’ve consistently held, and that is the position that our constituents are asking us to take. We don’t believe it will lead to the loss of the team. The club is established. It is going great guns, it is kicking goals without a stadium and without even having played a game in the major league.
Journalist: How can you say that it won’t force the destruction of the team when the AFL has been consistently upfront by saying no stadium, no team?
Peter George:
We’re here to tell them the point we’re trying to make today.
Journalist: If there’s one thing you want to achieve from this meeting, what’s the one thing for people to understand?
Vica Bayley:
One thing we need to do is make sure the AFL hears the views of our constituents and the other elected representatives that have signed on to this letter. And we want to hear from the AFL why, in the face of the findings of the Planning Commission that this will cripple our budget and diminish our city and impact on the values of some of its most cherished stakeholders—veterans and Aboriginal people—why they would push on with the insistence that this stadium be built.
Journalist: Would you accept the stadium at another site?
Vica Bayley:
Look, our position is we’ve got two stadiums at the moment where AFL is currently being played: Bellerive and York Park. They are great options for our people to run out on, to build on, and they can run out immediately, effectively. So we don’t think this is a conversation about an alternative stadium and where that stadium should be. If that’s a conversation that the Premier and the AFL legitimately want to have with Tasmanians into the future, well then that’s the time to have it.
But as it stands, in terms of this stadium, in this location, to this specification, the Premier did not even consult Treasury or his own cabinet, let alone the Tasmanian people.
Journalist: Did he not consult the Tasmanian people by going to the polls? And it was essentially, would you agree, a referendum on the stadium?
Vica Bayley:
I wouldn’t agree it was a referendum. We know people vote on all sorts of issues. I think this has moved beyond the issue of popularity. We know that poll after poll has shown that Tasmanians oppose this stadium. The fact that it’s now being bulldozed ahead in the face of expert, independent planning advice that it should not be built will just steel the resolve of Tasmanians.
This effectively has the potential to have a corrosive impact on not only the brand of the Devils, should the stadium go ahead, but the AFL itself. So this is a major branding issue for the AFL as well. Tasmanians have a long and proud history of standing up for the values that they cherish. Clearly, Tasmanians have articulated they cherish the values of our city, of the Cenotaph, and they clearly cherish the need for a sustainable budget that can deliver services.
Tasmania has some of the worst education results in the country, some of the worst health results in the country, and our public housing waiting list is over 5,000 applicants, and they’re waiting longer and longer. No one can say that Tasmanians are having their critical needs met. It’s clear that a new stadium at Macquarie Point as a condition for a team that we’ve long deserved is untenable, given the budget crisis Tasmania faces and given the expert recommendation of the Planning Commission that it should not be built.
Journalist: Do you think there will be major protests if it went ahead?
Vica Bayley:
We’re not here to threaten the AFL with major protests. They can make their own decisions about what may or may not happen, but history shows that Tasmanians are loud and proud and stand strong in the face of corporate overreach, in the face of what they see as corrupted process. I am sure that Tasmanians, including us as elected representatives, will keep fighting this stadium irrespective of the vote in parliament.
Journalist: So just to be clear, do you think the AFL is bluffing, in a sense, that the stadium is a condition for the team? You think that if the stadium is blocked, the team will continue?
Vica Bayley:
Well, let me just answer that by saying that this meeting has taken us two letters that weren’t responded to, probably three emails, and an email yesterday morning to say we’re coming here at 12 o’clock, come what may, before they agreed to a meeting.
I don’t know whether the AFL is bluffing. My belief is that Tasmania deserves a team, can have a team, and our team will be more successful if we don’t have the Macquarie Point stadium. The Macquarie Point stadium is divisive. It’s corrosive. It’s dividing Tasmanians, and it’s going to have an impact on the brand and the performance of the Devils and, ultimately, I think the brand of the AFL.
Peter George:
Can I just add that I’m not here because I think the AFL is going to suddenly change its course today. I think I’m here, and I think we’re here, to give them a different perspective, to explain what the concerns are, to explain that there is an enormously divisive issue in Tasmania, and ask the AFL to reconsider and to rethink its demand for a stadium which is neither needed nor something that Tasmania, with a $9 billion debt and growing, can afford. So that’s what we’re asking. I’m just asking for a reasonable rethink of its position.
Vica Bayley:
Let’s go in and we’ll come out when we are done.
End of briefing
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.