As a planner, I'm frankly incredulous that the future of the strategically important and complex Macquarie Point site is currently being determined by a mainland football executive and a ... Premier. Accordingly, I fear not only for Tasmania's future budget and essential services, but also for the future of the Hobart region and informed democratic decision-making. 

If you feel that you require more information on the matter, I will direct you to the 100+ Proponents reports and diagrams, 14 agency submissions, 800+ public submissions, and the TPC Panel and Gruen reports currently available online ... I would respectfully suggest there is more than enough information available to understand why the proposal should be rejected. 

​

Dr James continued by writing:

​

If you are interested in the issue of construction jobs associated with the proposed stadium, then I would urge you to read about the health and safety risks to the construction workers at the still-contaminated Macquarie Point site. And I would urge you to ponder the alternative construction and other jobs that hundreds of millions of dollars of public spending elsewhere could provide. 

​

I turn now to the AFL stadium deal itself and, more importantly, the viability of AFL stadiums in their own right. For those with eagle eyes and interest in the AFL, the release of the AFL fixtures for 2026 may have drawn their attention. In 2026, and prior to the finals, both the Marvel Stadium and the MCG will host around 45 games each. For both stadia that's the working annual average. Both now have a concert season. The MCG hosts Test cricket, while Marvel is the home of the Big Bash team, the Renegades. Both stadia host in the vicinity of 65 to 75 arena events a year. Don't be misled, this is where the revenue comes from to make these venues viable as there's a degree of subsidy for AFL games, especially so with the AFL-owned Marvel Stadium. 

At the MCG you could reliably suggest that nine or 10 individual events each year attract crowds of 75,000 to 100,000 people. The AFL Grand Final, the Anzac Day and Boxing Day Tests are jewels in the crown. With a smaller capacity many football games at Marvel Stadium - under the roof - also attract capacity crowds and their concerts just about lift the roof off the stadium. 

It's not widely known that the master plan for Docklands Stadium, which was built at the cost of $450 million in the late 1990s, was supposed to host 100 arena events. That's 100 events on the playing surface over the course of a year. At that time there was also an agreement with the AFL and the then Docklands Stadium owners, and this is critical, which mandated that the AFL would fixture approximately 50 AFL matches a season, as well as the occasional final. This provided the stadium with financial security.  

​

Before too long, 100 events proved fanciful. It was never going to happen. Nonetheless, initially it had been felt such a volume of content was needed to cover all stadium costs and make the venue profitable for its owners and investors. That is relevant to our situation. It was felt that 100 on-field events were needed to ensure the stadium was viable. 

In that initial effort to host 100 events the stadium incurred both financial challenges and reputational damage. Many would remember the long-running furore over the venue's playing surface. Arena events other than AFL, such as concerts, RMIT graduation ceremonies, State of Origin Rugby League, resulted in some excellent revenue streams including admission fees and corporate packages - that's dining, admission, drinks and VIP seats - as well as general retail and hospitality returns. 

On the other side of the ledger, the downside was huge. It came in the form of turf replacement costs, particularly when concerts were backed up against sports such as AFL, Big Bash League and A-League fixtures. The reputational damage occurred because - often in full glare of television audiences - the turf was not replaced or sufficiently prepared for upcoming events. Twenty-five years later, I'm told that the stadium area management team has become expert at managing the ground in conjunction with the retractable roof. However, it is still a delicate process. 

The arena turf management team - some have been in that role for years - would say that they can make the turf presentable, but they can't weave magic. In other words, if multiple concerts are jammed up against AFL matches, cricket or soccer, there will be issues. In a nutshell, if the arena calendar doesn't provide breathing space and a rest for the ground, the playing surface falters. If the turf management team had a preference, the turf will be grown in situ. In other words, it will be regrown naturally. While the laying of new turf generally ensures the arena looks good on television, it may be hard under foot, slippery and may even lead to inconsistent bounce. In other words, not only a roof but also the hosting of major concerts can result in unforeseen challenges. Do we want that scenario in Tasmania? Are we prepared to risk it? And who has explained how it will work? The answer is: no-one as yet.

 
Undeniably, for the entirety of the Docklands Stadium's life, the AFL's agreement that 45 to 50 games will be fixed each season provided the venue with financial security. Also, with the Southern Cross train station located nearby and the closure of Waverley Park, which was the AFL's home ground, the Docklands could not fail.  

Macquarie Point has none of these assets, advantages or guarantees. At the moment the proposed stadium at the most will host seven to eight, maybe 11 or 12 home games. It will also host five or six Big Bashes. It may even get three or four smaller concerts. That's 22 or 23 potential capacity events on the arena a year. There is no guarantee that Test cricket will be played under the roof. It's not just a case of plucking some big soccer games or other sports. The venue management will need to look at the stadium close to 50 or 60 times a year if the stadium's bottom lines look anywhere near respectable at the end of the financial year. 

My other advice is that a fixed roof is more than likely to present added problems. A translucent, immovable roof will be something entirely different and new for the AFL. We will be the guinea pigs. Questions such as who has made this judgment and the rationale for such infrastructure have not been answered. I was advised that the key personnel at the Dockland Stadium, up until a few weeks ago, had not been consulted. They comprise the groups that manage the only roofed stadium for the AFL code in Australia, yet it's my understanding their advice has not yet been sought. A roofed stadium for AFL codes in Australia, yet this advice has not been sought. 

Turf requires sunlight, movement of air and lots of water for a healthy surface. The constant closure of the roof immediately negates against a healthy surface. It's why the owners and the executive of the Docklands approximately 20 years ago went to the Netherlands to explore the possibility of purchasing grow lights which add warmth to promote both a healthy turf and grass growth, particularly in the dormant winter months. 

At the time such infrastructure was being used by English Premier League and European Football stadia. I am reliably informed that when the grow lights were first used at the Docklands, the power bills went through the roof. In other words, a roof adds a lot more expense, both in terms of power bills and the need for constant watering. These are issues that, I'm told we won't understand until such a proposed stadium exists. 
It should also be noted that only a few years after the Dockland Stadium opened in the early 2000s, entrepreneur Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 chose to relinquish the stadium's ownership. Stokes obviously discovered it was not a cash cow, so the then stadium senior executive was given the onerous task to find new owners. The then management team at the Dockland Stadium produced a collaboration of financial and superannuation institutions to invest and assume governance and fiscal responsibility. That model existed until the end of 2017 until the AFL purchased the venue several years ago. 

During the previous 17 years, I am told ownership comprised something of a revolving door. In other words, financial institutions came and went. In terms of the owners, there was not a huge amount of longevity of tenure. Today, under the AFLs ownership management, Marvel still annually hosts a similar number of arena events. There are approximately 75 events, which of those includes about 45 AFL events as per the initial agreement. 

At Macquarie Point we are looking at between seven and 12 matches. Financially it does not stack up. I know that we are supposed to have seven games in Hobart and four in Launceston, but I heard it stated in the forum that the cost of those four games in Launceston would be around $1.5 million a year. Over a period of five years, it would cost about $6 million or $7 million if they played those games. That's why I've got some concerns that within five years the games won't be played in Launceston because of the financial implications. 

To protect some of the revenue for the owners the well-known Medallion Club was implemented. The Medallion's Club's 5,000 to 6,000 members became the stadium's critical financial generator. Membership costs began at $5,000 per year. I don't think we have 6,000 people in Tasmania who could afford to pay $5,000 a year. Extending membership contract means discounts but the sales team always strive to generate the longest possible contracts, which is six to 10 years. More often than not, memberships were bought by big, medium-sized and smaller corporations for their clients and staff. I wonder how Tasmanians would feel about the formation of elite and exclusive high rollers Medallion Club. It would include the stadium's best seats but to secure a membership you will need to contribute that sort of money. How many people do we know have $5,000 to prop up a stadium? Maybe the government knows of a few.  

Mr President, to highlight the Docklands Stadium's hardline approach, for 12 years a policy was implemented which refused patrons permission to bring commercially prepared and purchased foods and drink into the stadium. For instance, Nando's and Subway opened retail outlets within a 'punt kick' from some of the main entrance gate. However, the stadium's events day staff were directed not to allow patrons carrying such products into the venue to make sure the hospitality contractors inside had a captive market to justify their high rents and high prices. The policy was changed around 2013 following several years of negative press and complaints from patrons. 

Prior to the AFL buying the stadium I am advised the venue generated an income of approximately $100 million per year, but still there was a view from the owners that their return on investment was insufficient. Publicly, the AFL Docklands tenants - Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, North Melbourne and to a lesser extent Essendon and Carlton - constantly demanded a greater match day return. This was despite the fact that clubs had signed contracts with the stadium owners and, in most cases, as I understand, the contracts were countersigned by the AFL. Much of this controversy can found on Google.  

I suppose what I'm trying to say is it's just not the build; it's the operation and the risks that we're going to be taking with our limited resources. A lot of these risks won't be known until we've put a roof on a stadium that hasn't been tried anywhere else, a translucent roof. Only when that roof goes up, we heard from Cricket Tasmania, would there be a possibility of signing off. What if it's not good or if it doesn't work? 

The biggest critics were those clubs that attracted the smallest crowds. Clubs such as North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda publicly demanded more revenue from the stadium even though the bulk of their rusted-on supporters were members, which meant that in most cases they paid their membership fees directly to their club before a season commenced. In other words, those clubs weren't contributing greatly to the stadium's revenue and debt recovery. 

Still today, with a multinational catering company, a brewer, security, cleaners - all operating under contracts and monopoly arrangements - plus significant Victoria Police costs, there are many, many sticky fingers in the stadium's financial pie. 

We are told the Tasmanian government stadium will be a different model. It's known that the new Tasmanian stadium's Chief Executive, James Avery, was close to influential and prominent Australian economic and political leader, Tony Shepherd, who I believe is still the Chair of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust. It's probable that James, in collaboration with Tony and the AFL, will have an outline as to how a government-owned stadium might work. However, despite such a powerful collaboration it needs to be noted that one thing the AFL club, GWS, also run by Tony and James, has failed to build big game day attendances at Giant Stadium, which is just 26 minutes from Sydney CBD. 

GWS recently boasted 36,000 members, although such a number does not seem to transpose itself into 'Melbourne-like' attendances on match day. When GWS was conceived, the AFL would have projected that the overall membership and match day crowds by 2025 would be far higher than they constantly are. 
The point is that the AFL can't control the numbers that attend matches and that stands to be one of the biggest challenges in Tasmania given the state's decentralisation and the distance to Hobart from the footy heartland in the north-west. My view is that for the Tasmanian team to be viable and therefore successful needs the physical, emotional and financial support of all sports-loving Tasmanians, as well as expats nationally and overseas. A financial member of the club is equally important whether they come from Zeehan, Port Sorell, Circular Head, Devonport, Ulverston, Sandy Bay, or for that matter from Brisbane or even London or New York. 

If arena 'content' is insufficient at Macquarie Point, which on current estimates it seems probable will be the case, in time the AFL will shoot from the hip and fixture all its Tasmanian games at the Hobart venue. The Launceston matches will no longer occur. Bear in mind that the AFL controls the fixture list and where the high value games will be played. Without too much effort you could anticipate the AFL will convince the broadcasters to mount an argument which supports their case. To suggest they won't move the goal posts is naive. It is not the way the AFL operates. 

It was wonderful to see the 15,000 people here at the rally. I know that there were people from all over the state. The people I stood next to at the rally were from Burnie, people I knew, and they had travelled down specifically, but that was from the state. If you look back at over the last four or five years, most of your bigger crowds have been in Launceston. Four to five thousand on average in Hobart; 12,000 to 15,000 in Launceston. 

What will it eventually look like, Mr President? I'm advised that with 10 or 11 games in Hobart, four or five in Launceston, maybe seven or eight in Hobart, and draw your own conclusions as to what that will mean for membership statewide and support of the Devils from Tasmania's north and north-west regions. 
I don't believe throwing everything at Hobart will be a success. My beliefs are based on some of the information above. By all means base the team and its players in Hobart. It makes sense to locate the team in the capital, but at least for several years games should be shared between Hobart and Launceston. The club and the AFL can establish patterns and collate data related to crowds, memberships, corporate support, et cetera, and from there, a clearer picture will emerge about the determination of locations and where games can be played and the establishment of key infrastructure.  

While purely a football issue to make Tasmania as competitive as possible, shouldn't the club be afforded the home ground advantage? Hawthorn has become nearly unbeatable at York Park, mainly due to Tasmania's unique playing conditions - the conditions in which Darrel Baldock from Latrobe learnt to play football.  

Interchanging locations between the north and the south would be a massive bonus for the new team. If the team is well coached, developed and organised, and a combination of experienced players and young talent are recruited, the club is likely to make a solid start. From that club's foundation, membership will flourish. Playing the bulk of the matches under a roof, however, will negate a home ground advantage. In 25 years, only two of the Docklands tenant club, that's Essendon and Western Bulldogs, have won premierships. Essendon won the premiership in 2000, the first year of Dockland Stadium. The team was already a powerhouse, and some would say its failure to progress to the AFL grand final in 1999 was the impetus for its success in 2000. 

Tasmania is ready for its own AFL team and we're ready to have it based in Hobart. It just makes sense for the games for the first three or four years while we're getting our feet to be played between Launceston and Hobart. That would give our government a chance to fix the coffers so that it's in a better situation than it is at the moment. What we're doing is we are throwing our team in with the stadium because we think it's got to work. 

The expenses of running a team and a stadium at the same time when we've got spiralling debt is not good business case, it's not good management. You wouldn't do that in your business. You wouldn't walk into a brand-new business, build a brand new shop, get a brand-new team without knowing if it was going to be successful. You would get in there; you would work for three or four years and then you'd build something. If they did that and the government had that approach instead of being fisted into this stupid deal that we've made, we wouldn't be having this argument and there would have been more than 15,000 people there and there would be 15,000 people in Launceston at the rally. 

This is the wrong decision and it's this place that is going to let it go through. To draw your own conclusions, Mr President, I don't believe throwing everything at Hobart will be a success. No, I don't want to hear it again. From there the club and the AFL can establish patterns and collect data while purely a football issue to make Tasmania as competitive possible. Shouldn't the club be afforded the home ground advantage? 

Possibly what best summarises the business model for Marvel Stadium is a slogan and mantra which was adopted during its first 17 years of private ownership. I believe it's fair to say the AFL, which purchased the stadium near the end of 2016, has kept a similar approach to running the stadium. The slogan is, 'Content is King'. 

I'm going over this because it's really important that when we make a decision, we have all the information that we need to make a decision. It's just not about the team today and building the stadium. It's about the ongoing success of it. There is no evidence to suggest that we are anywhere near the figure of content.  

The other slogan which has made its way into the public domain is that the Marvel Stadium is the busiest in the world. In other words, the action on the ground barely ceases and revenue is also generated by a public car park, approximately 2,500 parking spaces. The stadium is always open for business in terms of conferences, seminars, gala lunches and dinners. 

Another phrase I'm told is often used is that 'it's barely worth a round of drinks'. It was made in regard to conferences and seminars. The commercial drivers of the stadium were predominantly interested in the big-ticket items. It's the major events such as big AFL clashes, big concerts, NRL, State of Origin and clashes such as the Australian Wallabies versus the British and Irish Lions which paid the bills, it paid the salary of workers and kept the owners of the stadium satisfied. 

I also take this opportunity to read a very pertinent statement a constituent sent me regarding this matter. My apologies for my pronunciation of this: (OK) 

​

I live in Hokkaido, Japan's Tasmania, population of 5 million. Sapporo, the capital city, has 2 million. Sapporo built a huge dome just like the one proposed for Hobart.  

It had everything going for it, healthy city coffers to pay for the dome, World Cup Soccer games, megastars to tour, a major baseball team, subway to the site, 230 flights a day, a nearby population of 115 million, and under 6 hours flight away from 50% of the World's population. Yet, the Sapporo Dome is now a financial disaster. 

The big international acts? Almost none. It's usually domestic tours or K-pop groups. Superstars like The Rolling Stones and Eagles played there once, nearly 20 years ago, and never came back. Why? Because shipping 60 truckloads of stage gear across water to Hokkaido costs a fortune. 
For Tasmania, it's the same story across Bass Strait. 

Even being the home of the Prefectures Professional Soccer team and with naming rights from a huge conglomerate, it barely breaks even. It struggles to fill with popular local acts, sometimes rugby games and the rest of the time it manages to give out 100 to 120 small events a year - flea market style. It survives with a skeleton staff and part time workers when there is an event large enough to open the shops and bars.  

​

​The five million people have to provide money to attract acts and to attract concerts. 
The Premier and the Tasmanian government have also continuously stated that the stadium will provide aspiring Tasmanian youth with another reason to stay in the state. The Premier stated in January2025: 

​

We will not be deterred from creating jobs, prosperity and opportunity for Tasmania. Especially young Tasmanians that want a future in our beautiful state ... We will never let our young people down who want to dream big.

​

I've got to put this on the record. I was a teacher, I know that young people are exciting, and they deserve everything they want, they've got hope and all of that. I get it. I was a physical education teacher, so I understand the whole sports thing.

 
My honourable colleagues, I put it to you that this argument ignores the reality of Tasmanian sports, recreation and lifestyles. It is wordsmithing spin, trying to build a solid foundation of thought based on platitudes, social and emotional guilt. We have any number of sports and arenas in which our young people excel beyond simply Australian Rules Football. Rather, soccer, cricket, basketball, hockey, cycling, athletics, swimming and each have been growing in popularity and participation in these sports and continues to have a natural ebb and flow. These sports all need significant amounts of funding investment to upgrade their facilities to ensure that our young people continue to participate. For a fraction of the cost of the stadium deal we could support these sports for decades. We are talking a few million rather than hundreds and hundreds of millions. 

We have to understand that football, even though there has been an increase in recent times, is an irregular blip. There has been a kick or a bump in activity without a stadium. It's because we've had a 10-foot devil on the steps of Parliament House the other day called Rum'in that excited and had all the people in their tops and jumpers. There's no stadium built, and a lot of those young people wouldn't even realise. 

​

For instance, an item on Football Tasmania's Strategic Plan - when I'm talking football now, I'm talking the about the round ball - 2024-2028 Competitions and Pathways Pillars included the delivery of a Tasmanian A-League club. To minimise confusion. Mr President, in my speech when I referred to Football Tasmania, I'm referring to soccer - the game played around the world and not just in Australia. Such a licence would support the aspirations of thousands of Tasmanian girls and boys in playing for the Matildas and the Socceroos with a comparatively small investment. Soccer is Tasmania's most played team sport. It has 34,000 people involved at all levels of the game, compared to an Australian Rules at 23,000 and a figure that's 25 per cent uplift on the year before due to the publicity and extra funding for AFL in Tasmania and includes the school-based Auskick program.  

It's good that Auskick has improved, but it's still 10,000 people behind soccer. The parents I speak to love their football, whether it be AFL or whether it be soccer. I know parents are a little bit more concerned about the contact as kids get older with football, and I will just leave it at that. 
However, for every dollar Tasmanian soccer receives in funding, $28 is invested in Tasmanian Australian Rules football coffers. For every dollar we give to soccer, we give $28 to football. Yet there are 34,000 involved in soccer and 23,000. As a phys-ed teacher, I just want kids to get fit and active. If it's $28 for a kid to play football, and it's $1 for a kid to play soccer, I think we've chosen the wrong sport or football code - and that comes from somebody who's played football.  

Our numbers are decreasing. It's because of our volunteer base. It's because you used to look on the west coast and there used to be six or eight teams playing. You look on the east coast and you would have had teams, and you lose some of those teams - even on the north-west coast, and some revive back, which is great. But if you look at the future, what's the future of our sport? We talk about a 50-year stadium. Is AFL going to be the sport in 50 years or is soccer? If we look at those two sports, soccer is the world game. 

Whilst I do have an AFL background, I am the patron of the hugely successful Devonport Strikers Club and the patron of the Devonport Junior Soccer Association. In the middle of the year, 141 junior soccer teams played in Devonport on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday long weekend and the Lakoseljac Cup was played at the Valley Road complex. I'm still on the appeals tribunal of the North West Football League and I have been for 25 years. I was the [inaudible] at the Latrobe Football Club, so I love my football as well. When I see the comparisons of what we're spending and what the people are playing, what we're going to put at Macquarie Point that will overshadow our city, I don't think it's worthwhile. 

Going back to the AFL, we already have two perfectly serviceable venues in Launceston and Bellerive, which have catered for many games of AFL, Test Cricket and other community sports and events. I'm not against a new build; I think a new build has potential. I really do. I don't agree that that's the place to put it. I agree that it could be Hobart, and I think there are other greenfield areas. We just have to improve our method of transport to get from that point to that point, to put our stadium in a better spot. That's doable. That method of transport could also help to go out to the JackJumpers' games and we could use their car parks. We could come down the river, and you wouldn't have the angst that we have now.  
We wouldn't upset the RSL. We wouldn't upset our Aboriginal groups who have a sacred site. We wouldn't upset the view down the river if we can move our stadium out to where the JackJumpers play. It makes sense to me. Where's our community expanding to now? We're going out to Brighton. That's going to be the geographic centre of Hobart in 50 years, because we have no place than to go that way. Yet we're going to have all these people from all over coming into our little city centre and we have all these problems that exist. 

The Hobart City Council report says that of course the money is going to be good, but everything else they said in their report is not good. Everything else they raised was not good and we're ignoring that. We're ignoring that here, and it's not right. 

I initially wrote a response to this legislation before the last election.  I wrote that 'the deal really is nonsensical and if it wasn't so serious, I, like other members, would be waiting for another Utopia video humorously portraying the Tasmanian circumstances'. Just on 20 November, Pulse reported that the ABC has commissioned an entire satirical series on this with jokes that write themselves. The stadium debacle has turned Tasmania into a national joke - I don't think they expect us to take it on - 570,000 people and you're going to build a roofed stadium, and you're $10 billion in debt?  

Did people realise that very few Tasmanians - and it could be because they have to travel away - male or female, play in the AFL? In the last 25 years we have averaged less than four young men. That's not to say we shouldn't have a stadium and we shouldn't have to aspire our kids to do that. We have the talent here. We don't have the population. They don't have the competition when they're young, but that will happen. 

Furthermore, young Tasmanians aspire to many things. The arts, music and creative sectors fundamentally underpin Tasmanian excellence. There are many areas we want our young people to dream big. However, if this financial white elephant gets passed, those Tasmanians will not be able to be financially supported by this government to realise their dreams. They're not going to have the venues for their dance productions; they're not going to have the venues for their swimming pools. Those other sports are not going to have the funding because there won't be any funds there. It doesn't matter if we commit $26 million a year over the next four years if there's no money there. 

If we look to economic success and return on investment, the stadium is an absolute dud; with an estimated return of less than $0.50 of every dollar, unless you're the Coordinator-General, and that was based on one of the earlier and cheaper cost estimates. If we're truly looking at the future, let's look to Ireland. After a three-year pilot, Ireland had just implemented and expanded a basic income scheme for the arts that will provide a weekly taxable payment of about $850 a week to 2200 participants to provide some assurity and stability to those in creative industries. The three-year pilot demonstrated an average cost benefit ratio of €1.39 for every €1 of public money invested in the scheme. This ratio went up to €1.75 so far for 2025, investing in the arts. Here, in Tasmania we close down art courses. With Hobart's internationally recognised connection with the arts - can we leave the AFL alone and go to town following Ireland's lead with MONA as our champion? 

There's a quote from the editorial of The New York Times in May this year that can draw us further into this line of argument. It said: 

​

... stadiums are monuments to the poverty of our civic ambitions and our inability to summon the collective will to use the land we have for the things we need. They are distractions from our inability to build anything else. 

​

I will say that again:

​

... stadiums are monuments to the poverty of our civic ambitions and our inability to summon the collective will to use the land we have for the things we need. They are distractions from our inability to build anything else. 

​

A new stadium will come with an incredible opportunity cost, one that will prevent us from supporting other equally worthy activities, many of which have a far higher following than AFL. 

As mentioned, we've had a few Tasmanians get to play in the AFL, but thousands and thousands of young Tasmanians have different interests. For over $1 billion the stadium supports primarily one sport, with questions about its efficacy for cricket or likely use for other sports. Maybe the odd concert, conference or dinner here and there; so now we can call it a 'multipurpose stadium'. If one needs an example, the Tasmanian Jack Jumpers have shown above and beyond Tasmanian excellence in sport for a mere $20 million in a promised community multi-sport facility and $68 million for the Derwent Entertainment Centre. That's good value for money, nobody would deny that, and it brought our state together. It pulled our Tasmania together after COVID, it had something to do. Everybody, even people who didn't play basketball, got on board. This one is driving people apart and it shouldn't have happened that way. 

Earlier this year we heard from the honourable member for Elwick regarding the desperate need for substantial investment in community basketball infrastructure across Tasmania, noting that is the number one sport for adults in Tasmania and number three for children, growing by more than 9 per cent each year since 2020. The recent motion stated that there was a shortage of 31 courts statewide, and investment in the state as well as Greater Hobart is needed.  

I put to you that it is not solely a problem with basketball, rather facilities for all sports in Tasmania as significantly below standard and needs substantial investment. Rather than investing nearly a billion dollars into a stadium directed at tourists and a few select players, the government could improve the state of all sports for Tasmanians. I get it, we have members of my age and little bit younger and a little bit older who want to watch a Tasmanian football team. We get it, they've been wanting it for years; they want to do anything for it, they want a stadium because it's our ticket to get a team, but it's not the sport of the future. 

​

Victoria Morton, the President of the South Hobart Football Club wrote me an email outlining the perspective of Tasmanian soccer participants, highlighting many of the issues I have just discussed. Particularly, Victoria wrote:

​

“My message is simple: this stadium is being designed for elite AFL and cricket, not for the thousands of Tasmanian children who play sport every weekend for fitness, friendship and community connection.

​

For years, government investment has overwhelmingly favoured AFL — ovals, elite facilities, high-performance centres and now a new stadium with long-term commitments to support an AFL team. With the recently signed cricket agreement, the stadium is clearly being built for elite professional sport. It is difficult to understand how AFL became the Government’s sport of choice when participation metrics show that football (soccer) is the sport most Tasmanian children actually play. There has been no transparent comparison of sports or assessment of community need by this Government. Fairness in funding should reflect participation and community impact, but that has not occurred here.

​

Meanwhile, other sports in Tasmania are left to feed off the scraps offered through small competitive grants, and I fear even these will disappear under the huge debt this project will place on all of us. As a taxpayer, the debt I will carry will not support my sport of choice, my volunteer hours or my 20 years of advocating for better facilities. Instead, it will be used to prop up the AFL and an extravagant vanity-project stadium at Macquarie Point. Everything we have worked for — fair access, better facilities, recognition of football’s growth — risks being wiped away because one sport has been given everything while the rest of us are left begging for scraps that will no longer exist.

​

When we sought modest support for Tasmania’s entry into the National Second Division — less than one per cent of what is being committed to AFL, and a genuine national pathway for young Tasmanian footballers — the response from Government was not enthusiastic. Soccer continues to be treated as an afterthought, despite carrying the greatest load in community and grassroots participation.”

​

Mr. President, as I have stated repeatedly, imagine what our teams could do with just a fraction of the spending by the State on the AFL. She then went on to say, Mr. President:

​

“Soccer is not asking for billions. We are asking for fair, proportionate investment that reflects participation levels and the community value football provides. Your decision will determine whether thousands of children get the facilities they urgently need or whether football and community sport are sidelined once again.

​

This is not anti-AFL. Many of us support a Tasmanian team. But not at any cost, and not when every other sport risks being left behind. This decision is not just about a stadium — it is about what kind of sporting future Tasmania chooses for its children.”

​

Earlier this year, I received related sentiments from another constituent. He stated: 

​

Proponents' emotional claims around young people running out onto a specialised stadium are just emotional appeals. If the government was serious about fostering junior sport with development pathways, it would be spending money on grassroots facilities, clubs, coaching, equipment and equal access to all sports, not just the elite level of a specific sport. 

​

It is well known that physical literacy and activity is declining in young people. We need to support every opportunity for young people to engage in physical activities and sport, and not just the government's preferred AFL. Supporting a wide base of grassroots sports will make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of Tasmanians and their children. A new stadium will encourage them to be involved, encourage them to support, but it won't always encourage them where we need it to. 

​

​I received a recent submission on the AFL stadium that also highlighted various probity issues within the AFL. Notably, it mentioned the symbiotic nature of the AFL and gambling, and the risk of the stadium becoming another stage for gambling. Amongst other things, it also raised the illegal drug culture; steroid abuse; sexism concerns in the AFL; the health risks such as alarming concussions and head injuries; and finally, accountability issues. I did have one parent, and I'm sure they won't mind, say to me: 

​

We've got 50 girls playing football and they have one changeroom or one toilet. That's not fair. Build the stadium. 

​

I wrote back and said thank you very much for your point of view, I really appreciate it, blah blah blah, but I couldn't see the connection. If they said to me, of the money you're going to spend on that building, if you gave us a couple of hundred thousand, we could build another toilet, another change room at our football ground for our girls, I could have understood that reasoning. 

On that gut note, gambling addiction in Tasmania is already a huge issue. Having chaired the select committee inquiry into gambling, it's clear that the government has failed to act on many of the recommendations of that report. A high school teacher and mother wrote to me in mid-October with a well referenced email reflecting on the peril that gambling poses to younger Tasmanians. Some highlights of that email that I would like to reflect on include:  

​

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation CEO, Shane Lucas, observes, 'Young people are given the impression that gambling on sport is normal and risk-free.' Likewise, the benefits of children's sports are well supported, but research also tallies the negative health of youth exposed to sophisticated gambling campaigns.  

The rise in youth gambling correlates with the rise in gambling advertising. Grattan Institute reveals that gambling normalisation starts young and advertising is a major culprit. The Australia Institute reports the gambling industry spent $239 million on advertising last year. AFL sold streaming rights to Foxtel (formerly owned by News Corp, now DAZN) and Seven media for $4.5 billion, in order to on-sell to gambling advertisers. The Guardian have self-imposed a ban on gambling ads, while Nine, Seven and News Corp are yet to follow. News Corp currently owns punters.com.au, Racenet, and the Las Vegas online gambling investment fund, Tekkorp, and recently targeted Pointsbet in an unsuccessful bid. DAZN's chief executive, Shay Segev, said: 'The convergence of sports media and betting is the future.' 

On March 13th, 2025, the Financial Review reported the pubs and clubs lobby group, the Australian Hotels Association, funded and successfully lobbied the Federal Government to prevent the banning of gambling ads, which also acted to protect AFL and NRL income. Yet according to the AFL Fan Association's survey of 3000, 75% of AFL fans, who rally around grassroots community football, are concerned and wish to ban gambling advertising. One viewer recorded 70 gambling ads in a single game. 

​

AFL sponsor, Tabcorp, whose CEO is former AFL boss, Gillon McLachlan, our own Devils Stadium contract architect, specialise in online gambling, is recently being investigated for money laundering!  
The international AFL sponsor, Sportsbetters, is being investigated for breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism laws. Anglicare Tasmania warns sports betting is hooking a new generation of gamblers. This year the AFL sought to increase sports betting takings, which encourages betting agents to coopt harmful micro-inducements. 

The gambling industry benefits from the 'not-for-profit' status of sports teams who not only avoid tax but receive free prime public land, infrastructure, and public funding for their businesses. Since 2022, AFL donates a token 10% of profits to community grassroots football. Is this a fair deal for our community? Is it a good return for your taxpayer subsidies? 

In 2023, the Australian parliament released 'You Win Some You Lose Some', the Murphy Report into online gambling and gambling advertising which recommended 31 gambling reforms to be implemented over a period of 3 years. Not one yet has been implemented. 

​

A Tasmanian-born academic also wrote to me with Australian and international research on the impacts of stadiums, pointing to three particular peer-reviewed papers. Of those papers, two particularly stood out to me as very important in discussing the prevalence of gambling in the AFL, and the role that the new 'smart' stadiums have as communications and technology infrastructure designed to enable advertising and real-time gambling, benefiting the sporting league rather than communities which house them. With the ban to block young people who are under 16 from accessing various social media platforms about to begin, what is going to be done to block gambling advertising from AFL games in Tasmania? This is both on-ground and in-TV advertising, and will such ads be banned in our existing stadiums and the new one?

 
Moving on, a common theme in the letters and the emails I've received on this matter are concerns regarding the use of the land. The heritage impacts, damage to the Hobart cityscape and the continued issue with remediation each provide a reason against a stadium build. Just as importantly, it's been brought to my attention that there are better uses for this land which should not impose the same difficulties in planning and social, economic or cultural costs as the stadium.  

Tasmania relies on its heritage to attract visitors, and its heritage offerings and relatively visual peacefulness are signs of a significant part of the attractiveness of Tasmania. The stadium, especially how and where it is currently proposed, will impose significant risks to this heritage asset. 

I take this opportunity to read excerpts from a submission by a constituent who has a lifelong record in heritage conservation, advisory roles in government heritage bodies as well as private advisory groups. David Kernke wrote to me the following:  

​

If approval is granted to develop a stadium on this site, not only will it have an immediate detrimental impact on the adjoining heritage precinct of Hunter Island, the Constitution Dock and Salamanca precincts due to its size, bulk, scale and built form, there are very real prospects that it could sound the death knell for the adjoining historic precincts and indeed the City of Hobart, by paving the way for future inappropriate development. This is incredibly serious. We are at a crossroads here and you, the elected representatives of our state, must carefully decide whether or not to sanction a proposed stadium development on Macquarie Point. A stadium on another site that does not threaten our built heritage and tourism drawing power is not an issue. But a stadium on Macquarie Point is a big issue and a big problem. That being the case, may I respectfully ask that you carefully consider the economic benefits to Tasmania that our unique built heritage brings to the state.  

Whilst only a handful of Australia's early buildings from colonial times survive in the mainland cities of Australia, that is not the case in Tasmania. In Hobart we are fortunate that many of these wonderful assets have survived - gifted to the inhabitants of Tasmania by the legacy of our forebears. However, this situation can change quickly if inappropriate and short-sighted decisions are made by governments. If approval is granted for a stadium to be built at Macquarie Point, Hobart could slowly morph into just another Australian capital city, devoid of character and historic architecture, but with a stadium. If a stadium is developed on a site other than Macquarie Point, a site that does not threaten our unique tourism, drawing built heritage and unique capital city, then that will be a great bonus, a great decision and an excellent outcome for Tasmania and all Tasmanians. 

​

If we build a new stadium, but not at Macquarie Point, we will get the same benefits. Sure, we might not have so many people walk through town to find a bar after a game of football, but I'm sure there will be enough who will get on the train and come back or the buses will come and the boats or the ferry that have to accommodate in the city centre here anyway. 

​

To reiterate, the proposed stadium at Macquarie Point, with its massive scale, height and modern construction will overbear this historic area and form an entirely unsympathetic backdrop to Hobart's most important heritage precinct at Sullivans Cove/Hunter Island. The damage of this colossal and dominating intrusion, including that over at Constitution Dock and Salamanca, will be irreparable and is likely to lead to future inappropriate development throughout the immediate heritage precincts in Hobart City, a 'domino effect', forever changing our unique city. 

If a stadium, subject to the normal planning processes is developed, or redeveloped, on a site other than Macquarie Point, that does not threaten our unique tourism drawing built heritage and unique capital city, then that will be a great bonus, a great decision and an excellent outcome for Tasmania and all Tasmanians.  

​

I can just hear other politicians and other people saying,'Look, let's just build it. It's been so long now let's just build it and get it done with. Even though we know this is not the best decision because it's going to impact our state forever. It's going to impact, but let's just build it because we've got the design, we've got the money, we've got the licence, we will get the team'. 

​

Let us build it, but build it somewhere else so we don't wreck what's already beautiful in Hobart. Mr Kernke also noted the recent NRE commissioned research into the contribution of built heritage to Tasmania. Particularly, it underpins our tourism and construction industries, community liveability in Tasmania's overall brand. Moreover, it directly supports 2,085 jobs and indirectly 2,967 jobs, directly contributing $375 million to the Tasmanian economy, and indirectly $589 million. 

Various other interest groups including the Glebe Residents Association have also written to me with their concerns about the impact on Tasmanian heritage. Various prior examples of work on the Macquarie Point have been brought to my attention as involving community input for such issues, for example, the MONA Vision from Macquarie Point involved substantial community consultation and community buy in. 

Meanwhile, in creating the stadium proposal, the government, with its innate hubris, has ignored all previous work, conspiring in secret and utilising a legislative majority to ram it through without any community input. Mr President, I must ask why is this so? What is it frightened of? 

As was raised with me by a constituent, the Gehl report, which underpins the Hobart City Council's inner city development plan and approach to future development in Hobart, recommends the following:  

​

'Given the extraordinary location of Hobart Railyards, the waterfront should be celebrated by an urban formulated public space relating to its highly urban situation. The buildings at the Hobart Railyards ought to hold a multi-functional mix of use, within the buildings and within the individual quarters.' The site should 'Ensure passive surveillance by placing residences low and in close contact with public space. Build low and dense and avoid tall buildings creating problems at the micro-climatic level.' 

​

However, we've had members of this place and the Premier saying, let's just do something with it. We haven't been able to figure out what to do with it, so let's put a stadium on it. Well, if we can't figure out what to do with it, put the stadium somewhere else and let the next generation figure out what to do with it. Let's not just bury it away for the sake of the stadium. 

It's unfortunate the predominant planning and development regulation body in Hobart, the Hobart City Council, acknowledges this reality while the government simply ignores and overrides it with the proposal, which is entirely out of context with the vision being implemented by the Hobart City Council. 

Notwithstanding the question of the impact of the stadium on heritage and the unsuitability of the site in relation to the cityscape, there are also simply better uses of the land and the money. 

In 2017, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation produced its reset masterplan for 2017-2030 based on the MONA vision. As the then-minister for State Growth Peter Gutwein said at the time: 

​

The Macquarie Point redevelopment is ideally positioned to stimulate the broader economy, attract investment, and create jobs. 

​

The corporation then went on to engage in a community-wide consultation with over 250 key stakeholders. I quote from the resulting plan: 

​

'... to provide opportunities for input into the reset vision and enhance community ownership and commitment to the reset.' The defining principles for the site that came out of the process are to:  
Involve a mix of uses; be people-focused; support inner-city living; be well-connected to the broader Hobart environment; respect the site's history; incorporate principles of sustainability; not prejudice port activities; complement and not compete with activity in the CBD and greater Hobart area; and deliver major socio-economic benefits to Hobart and Tasmania. 

​

​These defining principles are fully supported in Federal Group's submission that I spoke of earlier. However, the government has ridden roughshod over this considered approach to impose an enormous, domed roof structure which is to be 54 metres high - 10 to 12 metres higher than the neighbouring Grand Chancellor Hotel. 

In a related vein, the environmental impact that this bill will have is worrisome. To quote a concerned couple from Sandy Bay:  

​

Then there are the horrific environmental issues attached to the location where the AFL insisted this monument to a sporting code had to be built, and that will add to the overall cost of the project due to the difficulties of first cleaning it up. The toxic sludge on the Macquarie Point site is a significant health hazard as well as a logistical nightmare. Sea level rise will only add to this. 

​​

Mr President, Tasmania decries the stadium situation as a disgraceful and miserable idea because neither the numbers nor the business case made by the government makes any sense other than as a despotic attempt to force AFL into the centre of Hobart. 

The government has swept damning report after damning report under the carpet. It has used unrealistic expectations to boost the purported profitability of the stadium concept. It fails to recognise issues with the construction and real cost of blowouts. Various damning reports have been submitted to the government, including those by Dr Gruen and Saul Eslake saying much the same thing. Yet, I note that they have not received nearly as much coverage as they should have. There has been an utter failure by the media to appropriately and fairly cover the extensive submissions made against the stadium. The Tasmanian Planning Commission report is an apt example, highlighting practical issues with transport design, funding concerns, heritage, visual and scale impacts, and governmental mismanagement of the stadium. 

The Hobart City Council has briefed some members of the Legislative Council. I don't think those qualified professionals and elected members could even believe that the stadium project would have progressed this far. I was under the distinct impression those present did not actually believe that there might be a chance that this uncosted and unwarranted waste of taxpayers' money could still be on the table. 

​

As well as the government slandering these critical reports, it has clearly used fanciful expectations to prop up its business case. For instance, Macquarie Point Stadium -  

​

To reach capacity, let alone make a profit, will be reliant on unrealistic expectations on interstate travellers and Tasmanians alike. Yes, there will probably be a novelty effect for a year or two, but research shows a natural return to average levels. I note the summary of a research roundup of the value of public funding for a sports stadium by journalists, Clark Merrefield:  

​

Research conducted over decades indicates public investments in sports stadiums almost never lead to massive economic gains for host cities.  

​

Moreover, there are real questions to be raised as to whether the stadium can be built in what will be a rushed timeframe, with severe financial penalties embedded in the Premier's deal. I must question, why would we be paying penalties to an outside organisation if the build which we fund doesn't happen on time? 

As I first discussed, there's a real likelihood for a stadium, which is acclaimed as 'the first of its kind in Australia', to suffer an unbudgeted cost blowout. An example of what could be built on a brownfield industrial site for the same sort of money is the new Everton football stadium in England. The Hill Dickinson Stadium opened earlier this year, built at a cost of roughly $1.6 billion with a capacity of 52,769 people and without a covered roof. Interestingly, Liverpool City Council was to be a loan guarantor for a significant part of the cost, a facility that is now unnecessary as Everton Football Club has arranged all the necessary finance through private means. If only the same was true of this stadium's finances.  

There must be a big problem as there have been no commitments made regarding the management of potential budget blowout, or what contingencies may be in place and likely, this will also land as a nasty surprise on the shoulders of the Tasmanian taxpayers. This is especially likely given the government's inability to find willing private co-investors. 

I note that the budget has already blown out to $1.13 billion, and not a red cent more. Who foots the $200 million increase since the last dollar figure, you may ask? Apparently, Tasmania does, or so the government decided behind closed doors. The government has managed to blow out the cost of the proposal by more than 20 per cent: that's another $200 million before a shovel has even touched the ground. While the Premier is not even sure whether the legislation will pass, he fails to secure private investment and adds $200 million to the price tag. Consequently, Tasmania must pay much more than the initial proposal. 

​

I could have said the exact same thing the last three times this project went up in price. What we can be sure of is, exactly like a mediaeval rack as a notorious instrument of torture. the ratcheting clicks of the growing costs will only ever increase the tension of our already overstretched state finances. With the stadium builder in charge of the winch, we will have no chance of relief.  

Even irrespective of this recent blowout, how can the Tasmanian people expect this project will stay within the estimated budget? The government has failed to give consideration to so many issues and ignored community and professional concerns. How can one expect any project to stay on budget when it fails to consider and address or mitigate likely social costs, likely financial imposts and lost opportunity costs? 

​

When I first spoke on this matter, I stated the following:

​

I suggest that the premise for the deal has changed completely with the cost blowout unless the AFL can function as the guarantor for any government costs over the much publicised $375 million then the stadium cannot be part of the deal. Just as a parent being asked to be the guarantor on a child's mortgage or a business loan. Previously, some of my constituents were in agreeance with the AFL team linked with the stadium and made assessment and judgment on what was initially announced, but surely the game has changed. 

​

Since then, Madam Deputy President, we have a $200 million increase in price, the state cannot find any private backers, and inevitable cost blowouts are now obviously going to be footed by the bank of mum and dad, and every other Tasmanian. Frankly, the already shaky quasi-positive assessment made by supporters, when the stadium was 20 per cent cheaper, were assuming the existence of a private backer in a public/private partnership. This does not a mandate make and is even more so now as the value proposition becomes increasingly lopsided as the costs inevitably escalate. As such, I urge supporting members to reconsider their support, consider the general anti-stadium sentiment of the majority of Tasmanians, the obvious lack of a mandate or proper process, the lack of planning, and the escalating fiscal crisis that the stadium will just exacerbate. 

We've heard from other people about other major infrastructure bills both in Victoria and New South Wales, and Brisbane with the Olympics coming up in 2032. Our role is not going to get cheaper. With these considerations in mind, I put to you that a responsible member of the Legislative Council should not and cannot in good conscience vote for this proposal. As the final check on parliamentary decision-making it is the imperative that those items which have passed the House, no matter who introduces them or what agenda precedes them, must be thoroughly examined.  

Having to bypass proper procedure and subvert rule of law to pass a broadly unpopular proposal strays from representative governance and fundamental democratic values. As such, it is even more important that merits of the stadium proposal be rigorously scrutinised. My honourable colleagues, I put to you the following questions in considering the merits of the proposal, as a writer from Kettering put them to me: ​​​