Conscience Vote Adjournment Speech
Hon. Mike Gaffney MLC
Member for Mersey
​
4 November 2025
​
​​​
Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to speak on Adjournment with a request that the leaders of the Liberal, Labor and the Greens parties allow their members to vote with their conscience with a free vote on the matter of the Macquarie Point stadium. Few would disagree that the final vote on the stadium will be a watershed moment for the people of the state. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most consequential economic and political projects to come before parliament in recent history. It is also one of the most divisive issues facing our Tasmanian communities.
A conscience vote on the stadium would help to address notable causes of community division and distrust reinforced by a deeply polarising process. The findings of all the independent expert inquiry reports and reviews contradict the diametrically opposed assertions of government and enthusiastic supporters of the stadium project. For many Tasmanians, the government's handling of the project simply does not pass the pub test:
​
• which began with the Premier's private dealings with the AFL;
​• the Premier's absolute insistence on Macquarie Point as the only feasible location;
• the repeated changing of planning processes whenever the scheme faced a challenge; and
• the disparagement of critical experts instead of addressing the substance of their reports.
Despite the Premier's repeated assertions, the government's obvious lack of a mandate for the stadium is another obvious failing. Impartial and independent opinion polls have found that a significant majority in the north-west, the north and southern Tasmania oppose the current stadium concept. Moreover, learned planning bodies, well-regarded economists, Hobart City Council and even organisations such as Federal Group, which stand to gain from the benefits of the stadium, oppose it.
​
​Finally, the government has had to rely on the myopic support of Labor to deliver its numbers on the Floor: an opposition in name only. At no time has Labor offered the public a considered response to the specific findings of the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC), or earlier independent reviews.
Taken together, the failings of governance and the journey thus far could not have been better designed to invoke cynicism and division within our Tasmanian community.
In calling for a conscience vote, I note that all members in both Houses have a direct responsibility to their respective electorates. I firmly believe the saying 'people before the party'. Politicians' votes should not solely reflect the business stakeholders and industry entities that will directly benefit from the building of a new stadium.
I shall address these arguments in more detail, particularly why the three main parties should allow their individual members a free vote on the stadium.
Of the 50 members of parliament, 37 are aligned with one of three parties. We have one independent member who, as Leader for the Government, is also aligned to a party. It can be argued that 38 members in this place, or 76 per cent of our parliamentarians, will be forced to vote with the will of their party.
While the Premier has brokered the stadium deal with the AFL, it doesn't mean that all members of the Liberal Party believe it will bring a net benefit to their electorates. Likewise, even though the Labor Party has dropped the ball as providing a functional opposition to the Liberal minority government, it doesn't mean all its members support the stadium. There may be members of the Greens who might vote in favour of the Mac Point stadium; however, it is my understanding the Greens allow free votes for all its members on all legislation.
The '$375 million, not a red cent more' was just a furphy in a now limitless 'build it at any cost' auction. How can Labor remonstrate the current dire Tasmanian fiscal circumstances and at the same time support a 'she'll be right' project at Macquarie Point with arguably no financial constraints? The stadium will only add to Tasmania's erupting volcano of debt. If the stadium build starts, there's no stopping the inevitable financial burden that will affect every Tasmanian.
Everything about the stadium screams fiscal irresponsibility. A recent article in The Age echoed the desperate risk of a financially unviable Tasmanian government - and the dire impact it will have on our already crumbling credit rating and the nation as our guarantor.
​
A conscience vote is where elected members reflect their constituents' interests. Think of moral and ethical examples such as the same-sex marriage or voluntary assisted dying, and both agreed as conscience votes by a Liberal government.
​
I note that South Australia allows conscious voting on issues relating to gaming, and there have been calls for this in other jurisdictions. Such issues parallel the stadium project, given their moral and social significance, direct negative impact on certain groups of constituents, and significant fiscal implications for the entire state.
Conscience votes are also used for issues with strong community sensitivities, for instance a highly controversial debate over daylight savings. In 1959, Mr Steer, a Liberal member, with the support of Michael Hodgman, brought the daylight savings issue to parliament and was allowed a free (conscience) vote, again in 1965, and finally succeeded in 1967. Daylight saving was extended in 1981 as a Liberal Party-endorsed free vote. These moves were all backed with extensive community and stakeholder input - so it can be done, and it can be supported by Liberal governments.
For the stadium, the strength of opposing community sentiment provides a clear ethical mandate for it to be treated as a free vote. The last time I spoke about the stadium in this place, I referred to the lack of a popular mandate for the stadium. The premature election in May has made no difference. It's vainglorious for the Premier to claim a stadium mandate on the back of the election, one that's produced another fragile minority government. It's a matter of particular significance to the electors I represent. It is, at best, misguided, and, at worst, political hubris.
In my electorate of Mersey and in rural Tasmania more generally, the lack of a clear and established mandate has dire implications. There is a clear and equitable division in the claimed benefits and costs of this venture. Northern, north-west and west coast Tasmania will see significantly less benefit from the stadium than the Hobart CBD and southern Tasmania. The Tasmanian Planning Commission found that some of the claimed benefits would come from redistributing current activities within Tasmania to the detriment of existing venues.
However, the government's need to service the debt will impose a massive financial burden that will affect every Tasmanian, in every part of the state. The extra costs will have to come from somewhere, and that more than likely means higher taxes, service cuts and job losses in a smorgasbord of financial attrition.
Politicians must be directly and personally accountable to those who elect them, and they must not be seen to be hiding behind a directive from their party machine. Dr Richard Herr just recently, in speaking to the members of this place, stated that 'the most important role of an elected member is to represent the people of Tasmania'. Dr Herr is experienced in these matters and was quoted in the contentious 2007 Gunns pulp mill debate as saying:
It has to be a conscience vote. It ought to be a conscience vote because it is a planning authority. It is not acting as a legislative body therefore no one member of the Parliament should be directed in any way or by anyone on that decision.
It is possible that all 38 party-aligned members are fully supportive of their party's stance. I have no issue with that. The Premier stated on several occasions in the media that all members of parliament will get a chance to vote on Macquarie Point. If that is the case, it should be indeed imperative that the party leaders demonstrate confidence in our parliamentary process, one where each member of parliament must be allowed, and strongly encouraged, to vote with their conscience.
​
We're at a point in the stadium project where only conscientious political leadership and proper parliamentary representation can offer any hope to redeem public confidence in the process - to be answerable to our electorates, address genuine community concerns and advance the best interests of Tasmanians. I repeat: conscientious representation, unhindered by party politics and machinations, where parliamentarians reinforce the accepted standards of open and accountable government. Members can then vote with direct reference to the best interests of their constituents. Belated though it might seem, a free vote would allow proper process and be reflective of Tasmania at its best, which is an authentic and truly representative democracy.
In closing, I am not asking for members of parliament in this place to change their position on the Macquarie Point stadium. I am simply requesting that all members have the right to declare their personal opinion.
I thank honourable members for their consideration of this request and keenly await response from all three party leaders.
​
​
