Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I do appreciate the fact we had a briefing, that was beneficial for all members so thank you to the Government, the Leader and staff responsible for this bill. This is quite unusual, I will ask for some leniency as a member is absent today because of COVID-19 which is slightly different to the usual circumstances. We do not have the capacity in this place to be able to have that member's input - that will have to be addressed later on. But she did raise some good points in the briefing and I put some of those on the Floor of the House to consider when we are looking at this motion from the member for Elwick.

Some of the member for Murchison's thoughts are the Stadiums Tasmania Bill 2021 - I hope I get this right - it is not a new idea. She has concern about:

· what level of debt and liabilities will be taken on;

· the expected additional cost related to upgrades of the current stadium, and how this will be funded;

· value of assets to be transferred - $2 million - but what are the liabilities and expected costs associated such as the $74.2 million of required infrastructure upgrades as part of the York Park Future Direction Plan to carry out those upgrades? For those who are unaware, there is a 190-page document which is the Future Direction Plan York Park and on page13 the required infrastructure upgrade is $74.2 million. There are questions there about how that will be managed;

· if we are hosting and better representing national and international events we need these facilities.
The next bill is going to be called the transfers of stadiums bill 2022 which will look at transferring assets, liabilities and employees. There is some concern over the tabling of annual reports and budget scrutiny. The GAA committee has some concerns, as their briefings are not public or reported directly. What are the types of authorities on the mainland based on Tasmanian legislation, the Government Business Enterprises Act, the GBE scrutiny, and what scrutiny? A bit concerned that the assets can be sold solely on agreement of two stakeholder ministers if over $5 million. The priority that did not come on last year, that it was a decision of the Government, not a decision of this place.

Final comment, whilst this bill is being referred to Government Administration Committee A, it would not be able to elicit the information required about the liabilities, securities and other incumbencies that may be associated with the stadium being taken over by Stadiums Tasmania. There will need to be a full and open disclosure of these prior to the passage of any bill that will facilitate this action. I am not giving a comment now on the member or how she would vote on this motion.

I will go back to my original thoughts that whilst I see this as a mechanical bill about the operations of the board and how that would work, I do not see it as the one that I would want to go to a committee of this place. I think if the next bill does not address some of the questions, those issues, I would be seeking further information perhaps through an inquiry committee process.

I make the acknowledgement that when we have had other assets, for example, water and sewerage, taken over inevitably by the whole state, it was because the individual councils did not have the resources where they could satisfactorily upgrade that water and sewerage infrastructure to a good standard across the state. Therefore, while some people may have some real concerns about what happened there, I believe that across the state there was a capacity in that organisation with the amount of funding that they could attract through one body. I think that 10 to 15 years from now people will see that that decision about the water and sewerage was actually the right one although there were some mistakes made along the way.

If we look at what is in front of us with the stadiums bill, if we want to attract international and national events to this place we have to have those facilities that will attract that group here, and I am not talking about whether it be football, netball, basketball, whatever. But if we are going to go down that path it is not fair for individual councils to foot all of that. I think the process that they have in place here is well intentioned. Our job in this place is to make certain that when the next bill comes back to us, that all the information is on the table and that is where we will be asking those questions about the things that we have heard in the briefing today and other members will raise those before the House.

Whilst I appreciated the opportunity of the briefing to have this discussion, I will not be supporting the motion at this time. If it comes back at the next one, unless all those questions are answered and the information is there, then I will be supporting it at that time.