Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I appreciate the contribution from members so far and there will be more to come, I am sure. I also appreciated the briefings that we received. I liked the way they have looked at other states for guidance and they have looked at other legislation. They have looked at Fair Work, and I was interested to find out they have not had any approaches from any of the unions about any of the issues they might have. That was a positive, because usually when you are going to play around with people's working conditions, you will get a representation. I also acknowledge it is a small number of people so far.

I looked at the fact sheet, which is very good because it fine-tunes what this bill is about, and what this transfer bill is about. We have the opportunity here, in a political forum, to say how we feel about the concept that has been announced as well. In April 2021, Stadiums Tasmania, a new statutory authority to oversee the sound use, management and future capital development of Tasmania's public stadiums and related assets. That is fine. They want an effective and official operation. That makes sense. The act establishes the functions, powers and governance arrangements for Stadiums Tasmania to operate. That was the Stadiums Tasmania Act 2022.

This transfer bill is primarily about the employment arrangements for the new statutory authority and provisions to facilitate the transfer of current and future stadium assets, liabilities, contracts and employees. Whilst there is the rhetoric about the bigger picture, what this bill is about is that transfer stuff. I consider we should focus on that but take the opportunity to have a bit of a smack at them about the other things, as well.

Ms Forrest - So, it is your position on the AFL football team. Are you going to get to that?

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly.

Ms FORREST - I thought so.

Mr GAFFNEY - This is really about a staged approach to implement Stadiums Tasmania. The group that is in charge of getting this work done have come back with something that they feel is workable, has apparently been appraised by other legislation in other states. Obviously, there will be some finer questions we have during the Committee stage, but by and large, I think we all know this is going to pass, because it makes sense. We have to do the transfer part. So, this is the second part of it.

However, now I will have my chance to have my say about the AFL. It will not take that long.

Ms Forrest - Just say 'no'.

Mr GAFFNEY - I rise to give my contribution with an almost perfect sense of déjà vu. It seems as though it was only a few months ago that the original bill, which established Stadiums Tasmania, came our way. Maybe now it should be a simple housekeeping exercise to tidy up some of those loose ends, as part two of the original bill.

However, at that time, we had not long learned of the Premier's audacious and, dare I say, stunning move to build what was then to be a $750 million, brand spanking new stadium, with all the latest bells and whistles.

That is where people's alarms went off about this bill, about this act, and about what they were doing. We were not quite certain where this fitted, and that was a bit scary for everyone. Yet, one stadium is going to be built that is barely bigger than either of two of our existing large stadiums - that is, the UTAS Stadium in Launceston, and the Blundstone Arena, which is just across the water from the intended site of the proposed new stadium - without many more seats, relative to the cost of it.

It is all going to be entirely dependent on the AFL awarding Tasmania a nineteenth licence for our own AFL team by the end of the year. With Christmas only just over five weeks away, I cannot help thinking the Government must almost be hoping that they are not on the AFL's naughty list, as far as Santa is concerned. If we add this to the fact that two aspiring Hawks' heroes are apparently meeting the Premier to put their case for continued Tasmanian sponsorship, it seems there is a lot at stake.
Taking this a little further - if the AFL licence does not come our way by the end of the year, does this mean the idea of a stadium is off, to be seen as another white elephant in the historical boxroom of political ideas that did not quite happen?

The AFL does appear to be the master of the art of deferred enjoyment, as they seem to be stringing us along in a 'will we, won't we' dance that would be a perfect plotline for an episode of Utopia or its nation building authority. Maybe it could be a Hobart special, to couple with the UTAS move to sell off the Sandy Bay campus and move into the city. Perhaps these two projects give a whiff of provenance to the phrase 'truth is sometimes stranger than fiction'.

I am a bit concerned that the skyline of our chief city is resting on an AFL subcommittee that is looking at a licence. That is a concern to me, when you have a look at the history; but that is aside from this transfer bill.

However, I must say, I am keenly aware, as are most Tasmanians, of current challenges in our health services. That is clearly brought home by an ongoing shortage of 60 plus GP positions vacant across a field of under 600 full time equivalents.

Adding to this is the recent surge in our population, with almost double the anticipated population growth in the five years to 2021, with a total figure rapidly closing in on 570 000.

It may suggest that our secret is out. Tasmania is a fabulous place to live, and yet one that is struggling to keep up with the demand for housing, schools, and health services, in the face of our growing population. However, we already have two stadiums that will cater for 20 000-plus people.

Members of the Opposition have been keen to point out the possible anomaly of the Government's enthusiasm for a stadium, that will cost close to a $1 billion; and, given current inflation and rising interest -

Sitting suspended from 4.00 p.m to 4.30 p.m.

[4.31 p.m.]

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I was speaking about the fact that members of the Opposition have been keen to point out the possible anomaly of the Government's enthusiasm for a stadium that will cost close to a billion dollars and given current inflation and rising interest rates, that may yet be a conservative estimate. It is not my place to judge whether this is political posturing from both sides or not, but certainly upping the ante.

What I do know is that many people in our community are highly sceptical that hundreds of millions of dollars being promised to what might be seen as a want, over the need for the basics in life of health, housing, and education, and one that struggles to justify the Government's argument that a new stadium will drive a resurgence in economic activity.

We are all aware of the Government's declaration of record levels of spending for health, housing and education, yet we are still faced with challenges in capacity and levels of service. Perhaps it points to the complexities of the problem as one that is not easily solved and suggests other factors at play. The fact is that maybe the consequence of past decisions by governments on both sides, both at a state and national level, may not have delivered what was expected.

The current public service pay disputes is another case in point, with the Premier's declarations of final offers with empty coffers and unions demanding more. A point that has rung hollow with the UTAS economist who suggested ample capacity within the state's budget to absorb a higher offer. This also seems to fail the community's pub test when we consider the estimated cost of a new stadium for wealthy elite sports and put it against rapidly rising costs of living and growing inflation that erodes the value of wages in real terms.

Dare I quote the infamous Darryl Kerrigan and tell him 'he's dreaming' about the price for a bright, new, shiny stadium in Hobart as there are community stakeholders and members of my electorate who wish they could, especially when the beating heart of the AFL is in the north and north-west of Tasmania.

I acknowledge the Government's recognition of the concerns of possible impacts of Stadiums Tasmania on investment and community-based sports infrastructure. However, acknowledgement is only an awareness and given that grassroots community sport has the highest level of engagement and community support, I strongly believe these facilities should be the absolute focus for future investment. There are a number of lower level sporting facilities and community initiatives that would greatly benefit from a statewide perspective as part of a wider portfolio of sports venues.

I like to think we can expect tangible support in an holistic approach to sporting infrastructure and not just focus on the top end of the town, maybe as part of the ministerial direction to the board of Stadiums Tasmania that is defined in this bill. The promise of hundreds of millions of dollars of spending to sweeten the deal for the AFL licence when we already have two perfectly adequate stadiums that are larger than a number of mainland equivalents, seems to be a farcical waste of resources.
We must look at how we help our younger generations have fun and truly enjoy their chosen sport without the pressure and expense that comes with the expectation of moving to the highest levels, as elite sport is exactly that, for the elite, the very few. Sport is all about having fun and enjoying the activity, when the individual has a team, be you participant or spectator, win or lose; whereas the elite has no place other than the effort you put in to give it your best. I believe this bill as part two of the original Stadiums Tasmania bill is as inevitable as night follows day. It will be interesting in GBE questions over the next two years to explore the establishment and acquisition phases of Stadiums Tasmania and its progress regardless of whether or not it is foreseeable that the AFL allows Tasmania to eventually have its own AFL licence.

As I stated earlier, it is a pity that this has been complicated. There are things I am more concerned about in relation to our elite sportspeople or spectators getting to see those games; the number of kids we have sitting on couches with obesity and those sort of health problems and issues.

However, as far as the transfer amendment bill goes, I will be supporting it because we have made the bigger decision about going down this pathway. I see no sense in not supporting this. It may be refined in a few areas if the people feel that is the case but I will be supporting the transfer amendment bill.