Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to give my contribution to the Stadiums Tasmania Bill 2021 debate as a lifelong advocate for community sports of all kinds and I appreciate the briefings we have already had. It is from this background I place on record that I welcome the Government's interest in the future viability of our stadiums, as the management teams have always faced significant challenges in our island state. This is in terms of attracting major events to Tasmania whilst on the other hand supporting our grassroots community activities, be they sports, performances, shows and exhibitions.

Within this bill's core impact is the creation of a new government-owned entity, specifically, in this case, an authority. Adding to the context of this are our recent debates on a new structure for TasTAFE, where a bespoke, not-for-profit government business model was introduced. In seeing that there appears to be any number of government-owned entities under a variety of different models, I welcome further clarification of the Government's explanation of how this new model was decided as being the most appropriate for Stadiums Tasmania.

Stadiums Tasmania involves what could be said to be a significant commercial activity, with an excerpt from one of its functions described as:

Operating in a commercial manner that maximises value for the state, proactively communicating and engaging with stakeholders, conducting research and providing advice on the development of these assets.

This suggests to me that anything involving commerce is a business activity with entrepreneurial insights.

I am curious to know why a limited state-owned company structure similar to that of Tasracing Pty Ltd or Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd has not been seen as the ideal precedent. They are only two examples; there are other similar state-owned companies and government business enterprises all founded under statutory instruments.

Both of the entities I have named are tasked with the active custodianship of significant material assets for the benefit of the state, and our wider community, to maximise value as state-owned companies. Or is it one that is no longer relevant in the modern age of quasi-commercial, government-owned entities?

In my electorate, with the sale of the Devonport Showgrounds, we have seen the Government's declared financial support of $8 million for Tasracing to develop new harness and greyhound tracks for the north-west. Therefore, a direct Government subsidy to its own commercial enterprise, in a similar way that we might expect for our future stadium refurbishment and development. Putting that into the media - look what they have done; given themselves some money.

This may have been answered when, in response to budget questions in the other place, the Minister for Sport and Recreation stated that:

An equity contribution of $65 million will be provided to Stadiums Tasmania, which will oversee the development and management of the stadium assets in the state.

However, we are also aware that initially Stadiums Tasmania will start with MyState Bank Arena in Hobart and the Silverdome in Launceston, and potentially the Dial Regional Sports Complex in Penguin, where I assume the asset transfer would be relatively straightforward.

There is a strong suggestion that the UTAS Stadium in Launceston, which is currently owned by the City of Launceston, and the Blundstone Arena in Hobart, which is jointly owned by the City of Clarence and Cricket Tasmania, might also become part of Stadiums Tasmania.

My concern is that the owners of these stadiums will be rightly negotiating with an eye to maximising the sale transfer value, for the benefit of their own ratepaying stakeholders and residents, with regard to the $65 million to be provided to Stadiums Tasmania by the Government.

We may also have to reflect on an observation from over seven years ago where the now Premier in his role as the incoming Treasurer declared there would be a reduction in spending on boards and committees, with the Government's estimate at the time of roughly 150 boards and committees, with over 900 members, and a declaration of intent that 'over 20 per cent of all boards and committees will either be abolished, merged or have their membership reduced'.

How does this bill fit into that declared goal? Are we in a situation where there is a need to reverse this? If so, can the new corporate board structure, together with the on-costs of the board, with a CEO and staff team, provide value for money? That is over and above what could possibly be managed in-house by impartial public servants in a government department or division thereof.


Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the need for significant government financial support to maintain stadiums that might not be commercially viable in their own right in the open market. When this bill was introduced last year, the Government spoke of a need to compete with mainland stadiums that had huge capital investments to rebuild and update them.

I have to wonder, are we now in the form of a Hunger Games ritual - or should that be the 'Stadium Games' - where, as an island state with a relatively small population, we are trying to beat the major players at their own game, and very much on their terms? This is against far larger states with stadiums located in major metropolitan settings that have populations measured in millions.

I hope not, as it could be a zero-sum game where we overlook the intrinsic strengths of our grassroots community sporting codes, many of which are looking to maintain their own viability against others that are flush with corporate sponsorship, in the pull to seek out the next elite-level sportsperson.

The highly successful and oversubscribed Sporting Schools program is a perfect example of a taster program for our school students of all ages, and one that allows them to try out a new sport in a safe environment, and for volunteer coaches to develop their skills, without the pressure of a roster or constant training that can disrupt their education and family lives.

I am sure, like many others, I welcome the Premier's declaration of intent, in his Premier's Address, to further support the development of the Dial Regional Sports Complex with an additional $25 million as an essential part of our sports infrastructure for younger generations, and its possible inclusion into a Stadiums Tasmania portfolio. Adding to this is the promise of increasing the capacity of UTAS Stadium at York Park and the prospect of an additional indoor arena. These are prudent collaborative investments in our sporting infrastructure.

This has been declared by the Premier as futureproofing the stadium for decades to come, for A-League, AFL, and other events. I assume that the Blundstone Arena has scope for similar considerations in expanding its capacity and functionality, if and when the need may arise.

I was somewhat astonished to hear of plans to develop a new $750 million stadium at Regatta Point. It seems to already have been given the nickname of the Devil's Den, perhaps a timely moniker for what appears to be a dark hole into which buckets of money will disappear. I have to truly question the need for this.

If we look around our state, Tasmania already has two stadiums that have the demonstrated capacity for AFL fixtures. These are venues that can hold their heads high against other mainland stadia. To quote some examples, the GWS Giants use two stadiums: the Giants Stadium in Olympic Park that has a 23 500-seat capacity, and the University of New South Wales Canberra Oval for their ACT games, with a 14 800-seat capacity. The Gold Coast Suns, an AFL expansion club, calls the Metricon Stadium home, which has a 22 500-seat capacity. A number of other smaller stadiums are used as AFL venues, such as the Mars Stadium in Ballarat, with an 11 000-seat capacity and Cazalys Stadium in Cairns, with a 13 500-seat capacity. The seating capacity of Blundstone is 19 500 and UTAS Stadium is 19 000 according to one of the websites. We can observe prudent use of stadiums, many of which are a little bigger than our own local club stadiums that will not break the bank while meeting the needs of sports fans and teams alike. It is what we see on the field that matters, not the seats we sit in.

I dare not quote Darryl Kerrigan to the Premier and tell him he is dreaming, but there have been many community stakeholders and members of my electorate who feel that way. Most significant are the concerns of the necessary further investments into health care and education that must surely take precedence over an additional sports venue. What could be done with $750 million to lift health, housing and education services for the benefit of all Tasmanians, and not just for those who love ball games? The president of Tasmania AMA, Dr Helen McArdle recently spoke on this issue, suggesting that the money could be far better invested in the Tasmanian health service, a point I heartily agree with. We also have the ongoing issue of a huge shortage of GPs in our community that has to be addressed. These are just two points that would make a significant improvement to the daily lives of many thousands of Tasmanians.
There has been speculation that a new stadium will encourage youth participation in sport. Perhaps this is purely hyperbole, as grassroots sports is thriving in our regional areas, with active participation from all ages and genders. An example of a flourishing sporting code is soccer, with the highest participation rates across all ages of any sport in Tasmania, especially so in my electorate where the Devonport Junior Soccer Association has close to 1000 participants. We have seen recent announcements and promises of grants to enable the development and refurbishment of the Latrobe Recreation Ground. This is to support the growing interest in AFL from both men's and women's teams and to be shared by a number of other sporting and recreational groups.

I now turn to the Premier's second reading speech on this bill, with comment that has been mirrored in the Leader's introduction of the bill. The minister is to issue a statement of expectations to the authority on a triannual basis, like those that are issued for other statutory entities. The intent is to allow the Government to provide more detail on its expectations for the authority within the context of its functions and powers. Ministerial directions have been included to allow the minister - when needed - to direct the board to undertake a specific action to achieve a strategic objective or facilitate the administrative or managerial function of the board if or when it is required.

While I can understand the Government's desire to maintain control, it is my understanding that Liberal governments typically seek to have a light touch to regulation while allowing greater autonomy and stronger governance protocols. This statement appears to contradict this, and resonates with some of my concerns with the TasTAFE (Skills and Training Business) Bill 2021. To use an old euphemism, it is a bit like the minister having a dog and barking themselves. There appears to be a desire for greater autonomy and separation from government. The option to ameliorate or amend some of these clauses suggests a more collaborative approach from the minister and Treasurer rather than that of a prescriptive and overarching authority.

Perhaps some ability for a greater public scrutiny of Stadiums Tasmania activities on a periodic basis could have value and also allow direct submissions and commentary from key stakeholders and the wider community. The stated functions in the bill of Stadiums Tasmania are laudable and many of us would hate to see them diluted by the power and influence of the more powerful sporting codes. Many of these codes are in direct competition with each other to recruit, develop and retain grassroots participants of their sport.

If we look at a national context, Sport Australia has been seeking input for many years on how we develop our future elite sports people. Maybe the solution is far simpler. How can we help our younger generations to have fun and truly enjoy their chosen sport, without the pressure and expense that comes with the expectation of moving to the highest levels, together with the rosters and training obligations that can clash with many of their family lives and education obligations? Sport is all about having fun and enjoying the activity, as an individual or as a team, whether you are a participant or a spectator, win or lose.

This bill has the potential to provide a sense of stability across our larger facilities; however, the devil will be in the detail in the establishment and acquisition phases of Stadiums Tasmania. There are a number of low-level sporting facilities and community initiatives that would greatly benefit from a statewide perspective, as part of the wider portfolio of sports venues, and I hope these needs can be addressed in due course as part of the second phase of this legislation. I will be supporting the bill, but as the devil is in the detail I will be waiting to closely examine the second bill.