​​​​​[8.10 p.m.]
Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I rise to speak on The Hon Ms Webb's motion on the proposed Macquarie Point stadium. Specifically, I will speak on the fifth point raised by the motion, that the government should reopen negotiations with the AFL. I believe that the stadium deal as it currently stands unfairly places the financial position of Tasmania in the hands of the AFL and its 18 presidents. It is imperative that the state review its position and come to an agreement with the AFL which benefits Tasmanians or none at all.

But before I go to that, I would like to put on the record an email I received recently which I found really interesting. It is not very long and it comes from an architect. He says:

Hello Michael, you don't need a Diploma in Architecture to understand the blatant misrepresentation embedded in the Rockliff AFL Architect's rendering of the Mac Point Stadium impact on Hobart's hard-won vestiges of its colonial precinct. Please take just a moment of your time to verify the architect's own elevational drawing, as opposed to the deflated height depicted in the firm's photographic montage. Any 12-year-old can understand this. Their mistake is the inclusion of a fixed survey monument, the Gasworks stack at 38.1 metres high, which has always been a permanent height datum from which to scale existing or proposed surrounding structures. Critically, the Gasworks stack is on the exact parallel of latitude with the stadium centre line and hence, forms an indisputable height reference. As with all public buildings, the architect's heights are from the Australian Height Datum (AHD) and, therefore, directly applicable to the existing height of the adjacent Gasworks stack as can be verified in their own elevation drawing attached below.

The Gasworks stack, and people in Hobart would know, the stack is 38.1 metres high. The height of the AFL Stadium is 54 metres high, the dome, and some people might think, that is hard to visualise but I checked out the height of the Grand Chancellor along the road here. That is 42 metres high. So, the actual dome is going to be another 12 metres higher than the Grand Chancellor.
Now, do not get me wrong. I am all for progress or what that ever means, but if you could picture a place in your headspace where you have been to, and I picked a little town called Devonport in New Zealand opposite Auckland, you travel across there. It is a lovely, quaint little town. When you come up the Derwent River, and at the moment I think that is the heritage of our state right there. It is simple, it is quaint, it is cute, it is historic, and there is also a piece of land there that can be built on into the future.
I am just thinking what it is going to look like with a bird bath stuck in the middle of it that is going to be 54 metres high, huge and over shadow. So, all the people who live on -

Ms Forrest - A bird bath with a roof.

Mr GAFFNEY - with a roof. All the people who live on the eastern shore are not going to see that beautiful vista. They are going to see this monolith structure stuck in the middle of the river.

​

​Now, I do not live at this end of the state. I travel here for work and I travel here for play sometimes but I do not know if that is the legacy that we want to leave for the future because once that is built, the charm - the very charm that is Hobart, that is this place we are sitting in, is lost and people can colour it however they want but once we do that and once they build that structure for a game of football and a few concerts, then that is lost. That is really important to me because of the heritage of this place, I believe, means a lot to Tasmania and is important to this nation.

Sometimes when I am reading this Notice of Motion, those are the things that I think about. Not just what is going to be happening now or a few jobs that we are going to create. I will come back to the amount of Tasmanians who are going to aspire to play AFL football, as that is the aspirational needs of our youth. I pity what we are trying to set them up for.

I will begin by giving my thanks to the honourable member for raising the issue in the Legislative Council and for putting forward a comprehensive and thought-provoking motion.

Each issue raised in the motion is important and must be addressed prior to the decision on whether to go forward with the stadium proposal in its current form or any other. I would also like to acknowledge and thank those constituents who have written to me with their concerns, their questions and thoughts on the stadium proposal, of which there are many. Whether they are for it or against it, I always appreciate getting the different points of view and not trying to drive a wedge between those who may not support the point of view I have but to understand where they are coming from.

I note the recent independent review of the Macquarie Point Stadium by Dr Nicholas Gruen further confirms the negative ramifications of the stadium. Notably, the stadium in its current proposed form will not benefit the state economically, is unnecessary and poorly planned, and will inevitably lead to budget blowout and increasing debt, and will apply pressure to the Tasmanian economy. The extortionate nature of the stadium team deal is at the cost of Tasmanians and the Rockliff government must seek to reopen negotiations with the AFL and put Tasmania first in any future agreements.

Mr President, rather than simply reiterate the obvious, yet important, problems with the stadium, I feel it would of benefit to speak directly to an underpinning failure of the Tasmanian Liberal government's handling of the AFL proposal. The government has failed to recognise and act on the distinction between the community desire for an AFL team and the great costs that will be imposed by the Macquarie Point Stadium. Consequently, it has left behind Tasmania's fiscal interests. Without a mandate, and for little benefit, the government has given up substantial leverage, and made commitments to an unfair, unreasonable, and unnecessary deal for the sole purpose of securing an AFL team. I put it to you that Tasmanians are not supportive of an AFL team if it comes at the cost of the Tasmanian economy - as shown by recent polling - and it is a direct affront to what is expected of responsible government. The government, through its failure to recognise the demands of the Tasmanian people, has placed itself in an untenable position.

The solution to this is reasonably simple, Tasmania must reopen negotiations with the AFL and reconsider its position on the proposed stadium. The deal in its current state cannot be binding if the parliament has yet to assent to it and the Premier does not have constitutional authority to otherwise agree to it. As such, Tasmania must renegotiate to dictate its own economic future and not be beholden to the interests of the presidents of the AFL. By allowing such a poorly thought out, detrimental and unnecessary deal, the Rockliff government will subject Tasmania to impending debt, secede control of the future of the Tasmanian economy, and make major concessions for truly little benefit.

While the stadium may have its benefits, the current proposal is extortionate, demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in a risky investment with little to benefit Tasmania. Given the leverage of our paying for the stadium, as well as the existence of other Tasmanian sports - which the Tasmanian Liberal government has failed to use - the only rational path forward is to reopen negotiations with the AFL and ensure a better outcome for Tasmania.

I suggest that the premise for the deal has changed completely with the cost blowout and 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 a 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 judgement on what was initially announced, but, surely the game has changed.

The public opinion shift has been stark over the last few months. It is hard to find a person who really backs it anymore, except maybe some young people dreaming of being AFL stars who have very little concept of what takes place. From memory we have had 3.6 young people drafted from Tasmania each year over the last 20 years. The Premier keeps referring to the AFL stadium as a symbol of aspiration. Not in my thinking, Mr President. There are so many aspirational things I want for my great nephews and nieces and playing Australian Rules football is not one of them.

This is not the same project that was announced. This should allow individuals and even members of parliament to readdress their thoughts about, and their stance on, what is best for future generations. Since we have had the report, the game has changed. We should not be committing our state to the financial risk and insecurity that has happened in recent times, now that we have independent reports from credible and reputable people, bodies and groups. Yet, it annoys me that the government seeks to undermine that professionalism by introducing statements, and media, and questioning their professionalism - and yet in the very instance, it was the government who asked those people to do those reports. It annoys me that any future legislation in this place that the government might take to an independent body, they can then say, 'Oh no, we do not agree with that report, we do not agree with that, so we are going to be forging ahead and going straight for the legislation that we wanted in the first place.'

I find Labor's position quite strange. Their only exit strategy should be instead of straight-out backflipping - they need to present a refined position based on evolving circumstances, such as new costings or financial pressures - for example, inflation, opportunity costs, shifting community priorities and emerging evidence of alternative models.
In the north of the state, 67 per cent from the EMRS poll did not want the stadium to be built at Macquarie Point. We do have people in this place and the other place - from that part of the state - who are saying this is good for Tasmania. It is your party policy - not because it is good for Tasmania, because it is your party policy. This, I believe, is too important a project or an impost for future generations for you to be stuck on policy and party lines. It is wrong.

Tasmanians from the south of the state have also mentioned that Macquarie Point and its prime development land will be locked up for 350 days of the year, and will not be accessible for many in the community due to cost, distance, or interest, and it will become an economic drain on the state. I mean, if people are objecting to this stadium now before it has been built, imagine how much hate there will be when it is double the cost, their taxes have gone up, it is delayed, the state is broke and so on.

Prior to speaking on the need for reopening negotiations and reconsidered commitments, I would like to first recognise the interests of Tasmanians in a Tasmanian AFL team. This is an important fundamental driver of any franchise deal with the AFL. Seventy-nine per cent of Tasmanians are fans of the AFL. We know that from the huge amount of people who signed up for $10. Many would support the idea of a Tasmanian team. While the coordination of the matter may be contentious, a Tasmanian AFL team provides an opportunity for community engagement and Tasmanian representation on a national stage. Additionally, it will promote tourism and hospitality in Tasmania. Nobody is disagreeing that much or arguing that point.

The current suggestions of a Tasmanian AFL franchise team are not new. Rather, proposals have existed since the 1980s. The stadium was even proposed for the Hobart Showgrounds. There is political motivation to create a Tasmanian team, however the continued struggle to create one has shown the unwillingness of the AFL to provide reasonable terms. The answer to this struggle is either to reach a satisfactory deal for both Tasmania and the AFL or to go elsewhere. The future of Tasmanian sport should not come at unreasonable and extortionate costs to Tasmanians, nor should it impede the good governance of Tasmania. I take objection to the dichotomy of 'no stadium, no team'. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor should the AFL's interest in Tasmania hinge on excessive spending on a stadium.

Despite 79 per cent of Tasmanians being fans of the AFL, 59 per cent of respondents opposed this stadium deal in the current state, according to a recent EMRS statewide poll. I think from memory 67 per cent in the north were against, 62 per cent in the north-west. I think it was 53 or 54 per cent down south, but overall, 59 per cent.

Whilst Tasmanians want a team, they do not want the stadium which currently comes with it. Furthermore, the AFL Licence Taskforce Business Plan 2019 report expressly notes that the stadium is not necessarily a prerequisite for a Tasmanian licence. That was the AFL Taskforce report.

Senator Tammy Tyrrell's website further suggests, “the government's insistence on a new stadium appears driven by political motivations rather than AFL requirements. Furthermore, flawed economic projections and the potential need for ongoing subsidies undermine claims of financial sustainability. The AFL has positioned the construction of a new stadium as a non-negotiable condition for granting Tasmania its own AFL team. The ultimatum effectively places Tasmania in a difficult position, forcing the state to choose between significant financial expenditure and missing out on joining the national league.

The insistence on a new stadium, despite existing facilities, suggests the AFL is leveraging its influence to secure assets that primarily benefit the league's commercial interests. The AFL's minimal financial contribution, $15 million towards a then-$715 million project, contrasts sharply with the substantial investment required from the Tasmanian government. This disproportionate funding arrangement raises concerns about the allocation of public funds. The significant expenditure on a stadium primarily serving the AFL's interests diverts resources from critical areas like housing and health, which have more impact on the wellbeing of Tasmanians”. ​

​

Then, the AFL cleverly says, 'We will do academies in the north, south, and north-west for under-10s, under-12s and under-14s as part of that $15 million we are going to give you,' as though they are doing us a favour for our sport.

The current position of the Tasmanian Liberal government on the Macquarie Point stadium is sacrificing good governance, community and economic interest for a deal that will be of detriment to current and future Tasmanians.

Moving into the speech proper, there are three points that I view as tangential to the stadium issue. The AFL should not be determinative to the economic future of Tasmanians; the stadium-team deal as it currently stands is both unprecedented and extreme; and, finally, the current position of the Tasmanian government is unnecessary and detrimental to Tasmanians.

I would first like to bring your attention to the negative impact that allowing the AFL to dictate the economic future of Tasmania will have. It is paramount to the economic prosperity of Tasmania that economic decision-making remains in the hand of the government. The stadium proposal, as it currently stands, degrades governmental decision-making. The Tasmanian Liberal government has inherently undermined governmental decision-making by agreeing to substantial economic sacrifices in return for an AFL team without adequate negotiation or consideration of the cost to Tasmania. Moreover, agreeing to a stadium deal that requires exorbitant investment in unnecessary items, such as roofing, and requires penalties for noncompliance with AFL requirements, removes governmental determination for the use, enjoyment, and success of a major state asset. Instead, the future of major Tasmanian economic investment will be in the hands of the AFL. The multimillion-dollar penalties for failure to complete the stadium by an agreed time are an apt example.
When I state that the government is sacrificing the economic wellbeing, this is not mere hyperbole. Rather, the cost benefits and debt increase projected in the current proposal and surrounding analysis have clearly and consistently demonstrated a detriment to Tasmanians. This proposal will be more expensive than already budgeted, with estimates at $1 billion in costs, not inclusive of logistical costs. This, alongside the ongoing questions as to a budget blowout, community involvement, ongoing use and possibility of underuse for the proposed stadium, each inform an understanding that the stadium is likely to cost more than expected, whilst also returning less benefits to Tasmanians than expected.

With hundreds of millions of dollars of increased debt to the state in a time of global interest and economic insecurity, it is important that the government ensures that the deal is to the benefit of Tasmanians. I initially heard someone say 'Oh yes, we could get bands and groups like Ed Sheeran to come and play in a 25,000 seat stadium.' As if. Sheeran plays in front of crowds of 70,000 to 100,000. It is the cost across the Strait that is going to stop that type and how many people and how many bands will we attract for that type of entertainment?

I put it to you that the government has not sufficiently planned this deal, nor has it given adequate regard to whether this deal is truly in the best interests of Tasmanians. Instead, the government is committed to a substantial amount of cost under shaky analysis and relying on proposals of mysterious private investment to satisfy the unreasonable demands of the AFL. The Tasmanian Liberal government has failed to take the time to ensure a deal that transparently benefits Tasmania. Consequently, the deal has resulted in a commitment to a massive debt for a controversial stadium that is unlikely to benefit our state, will dwarf the

visual image of the River Derwent and historic Tasmania and will use up prime real estate without adequate mind given to the viability of its use.

In short, the current Macquarie Point stadium deal will allow the leadership of the AFL to dictate the terms and future of an asset paid for by Tasmania. In turn, the governmental representation of Tasmanian economic interests is compromised, at least regarding the stadium proposal.

The state is not in a financial position to undertake hundreds of millions of dollars of investments on a whim. We know that. We have heard it from members in this place. Instead of undertaking radical economic reform, such as the expansive privatisation proposals, the government should first look to ensuring the viability of the new financial agreement it is entering. Rather than dismantling the public sector, I propose the government seeks to renegotiate to take control of the future and economic health of Tasmania.
I would now like to turn to the unprecedented and extreme requirements placed on Tasmania by the AFL. Notably, the deal does not come with a mandate, nor support of the people. Meanwhile, it is not at all in keeping with the previous membership requirements for entrance and franchising in the AFL. Moreover, the high cost, unreasonable requirements and penalty clauses each place unprecedented requirements on Tasmania.

Each of these factors is reason enough to renegotiate with the AFL and reconsider the Macquarie Point stadium itself.

Effective leaders must know when they have to admit they are wrong and the government should do so and seek to find a better position for Tasmania.

Simply put, the government does not have the mandate to continue a deal with such economic ramifications. As I cited earlier, 59 per cent of Tasmanian respondents opposed the stadium in its current state. Tasmanians are not inherently in favour of the stadium. However, despite broad support for an AFL team, there was no political mandate for the government to enter such a substantial economic agreement.

Moreover, the government has continuously failed to provide any convincing justification for continuing with the agreement nor achieved support for it.

Simply put, the government does not have the support of the people on the stadium and, while there is public support for a team, it should not come at the cost of Tasmania's economic future.

In its failure to achieve a mandate, the Tasmanian government has developed the discussion around the stadium to focus on it being a football stadium rather than an entertainment venue for multiple uses. The government, particularly the Premier, has failed to develop a strategy that unites the people and garners universal support within the state for this project. The government could have easily achieved this with the resources at its disposal. Now we have a divided state and divided communities. Instead of forcing this proposal through with legislation and bypassing planning approval via state significance proposals, the government should allow the people to have their say in this proposal.

​

Just as importantly as the lack of a mandate, the deal as it stands currently imposes various unreasonable requirements on Tasmania and does not reflect prior agreements for entry and franchising of the AFL.
The most recent comparable example, Greater Western Sydney, required a mere $65 million upgraded stadium, which was jointly funded by the AFL.

Moreover, the proposed changes did not have the same political weight and significance as that of the Tasmania proposal. Furthermore, the AFL has invested over $200 million towards expanding the sport in Sydney, and yet they are offering us $15 million and another huge impost of financials. This is not comparable to the mere $15 million commitment made from the AFL towards the Tasmanian Macquarie Point stadium.

While it has made representations, no commitments have been made to further investment by the AFL in Tasmania, unlike in the GWS deal.

Looking further back to another apt comparison, the West Coast Eagles played for 30 years on the Subiaco Oval before moving to the Optus Stadium. Tasmanian facilities such as York Park or Bellerive Oval are equal if not superior in quality to such and should not be a limitation for joining the AFL.

Ms Forrest - Equal to Optus or equal to Subiaco?

Mr GAFFNEY - Equal to Subiaco; they played there for 30 years.

Ms Forrest - Subiaco, yes; I would not say they are equal to Optus.

Mr GAFFNEY - No, for Subiaco, that is the point. They played for 30 years before they got a new stadium and even when they are playing this week, the gala week, they are playing in front of grounds that will host 10,000 people, if that.

Ms Forrest - The Gather Round?

Mr GAFFNEY - Yes. I put to you that various notable figures in Tasmania have voiced concern of the current state of the deal. Some of these includes economists such as Nicholas Gruen and Saul Eslake, notable figures in the AFL such as Jeff Kennett, former Premier of Victoria and president of the Hawthorn Football Club. As Mr Kennett puts it:

The AFL and Tasmanian Government should rip up the current contract as it would always end in economic tears.

Both the report by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the recent report by economist Dr Gruen shared criticisms of the possible under-utilisation of the stadium, its excessive cost and poor planning. Additionally, the lack of transparency about the process invites speculation that it was against good advice from various departments, especially given the fact that there are now more pressing matters for the Tasmanian economy than the stadium proposal.

​

Should the government have received positive feedback from departments, they would have no issue being transparent. On top of footing the initial bill for the near-billion-dollar stadium, Tasmania is expected to foot any budget blowout.

As Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, an international expert in large infrastructure project evaluation has warned, “reported cost estimates were often highly and systematically misleading and cost estimates and benefit cost analysis produced by a project promoter cannot be trusted”. The deal as it currently stands places Tasmania on the hook for substantial sums of money and will have a real and lasting impact on the fiscal position of Tasmania.

Moreover, should the state not be finished on time, the government has agreed to fiscal penalties in the millions of dollars. In a Herald Sun article, the budget for the AFL's - Mr Kennett states that the remediation operations from the Macquarie area planning processes financial realities and unknowns in the current deal will delay the creation of the stadium and he put it very succinctly; 'there is simply no way the stadium will be built by the time a Tasmanian team is scheduled to enter the competition.'

As it currently stands, the AFL has and continues to dictate the terms of Tasmania's fiscal future, imposing conditions such as a roof which restricts future use of the stadium, perhaps for cricket, setting penalties, failing to comply with unrealistic expectations and, most importantly, expecting Tasmanians to foot an economic bill likely to be over a billion dollars and what do they expect of Sydney: $65 million.

I urge the government to reconsider its position and do not take 'no team, no deal' for an answer on the Tasmanian stadium. It is important for Tasmanian government leadership to take a fluid and open-minded approach to decisions which impact the state. The stadium proposal as it currently stands is more untenable than ever. The Tasmanian Liberal government's continuous disregard of warnings such as in the Tasmanian Planning Commission interim report and the Gruen report will result in economically disastrous outcomes for the stadium. Rather than continue to go forward with an unfavourable and unprecedented deal, the government should aim to reach a better outcome.

My last point of consideration is that the disastrous Macquarie Point stadium deal, as agreed to by the Tasmanian Liberal government, is unnecessary. Importantly, Tasmania has bargaining chips to renegotiate the current deal. Instead of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a stadium, the state can invest much less for a greater results in other state sports. Tasmania has other sporting interests and the budget for the stadium proposal is coming from Tasmania. Therefore it is imperative that any AFL proposal be on terms which benefit us.

Moreover, the renegotiation of the proposal would provide the opportunity to rectify the major structure issues of the current proposal with input from critics, analysts and the community. Tasmania has the upper hand in negotiation. We are funding the stadium and while Tasmanians want a team, as I have emphasised, the support for a team does not necessarily come with support for the stadium. I would also like to note other sports which are popular in Tasmania and which Tasmania is successful in which do not necessarily have the same level of national presence as the AFL; a fraction of the budget for the AFL stadium could be used to promote basketball, soccer, hockey, netball and other sports in Tasmania, upgrading facilities and promoting the state.

​

I know that Tasmanian football - the soccer - just want a 15,000 A-league stadium, so they can promote that and it is the number one sport in Tasmania - 34,000 people involved with it, compared to 22,500 with AFL football. That is the future, yet, now we are being imposed with a huge stadium stuck in the wrong place, costing too much money.

Let us put our money into other sports. Some of our best athletes come from hockey, they come from swimming, they come from basketball. We get three players every now and then per year in the AFL, a freak player playing in the football, which is great. But, should we put all our eggs into that basket? Or, should we do what should be right for Tasmania and put our money across the board so that all those kids who want to represent Australian hockey or badminton or table tennis or swimming or running get the same opportunities? Because, the money will not be there for those sports.

We have heard from the member from Elwick today about the need for basketball courts in Hobart.

Ms Webb - Kids aspire in lots of sports.

Mr GAFFNEY - I think we need to be very careful with what we are setting into concrete here.

On the other hand, if the AFL is publicly responsible for the demise of the proposed Tasmanian team, will it kill its reputation in Tasmania? There is no benefit to the AFL to deny proper negotiations and given the harshness of the deal - which the Liberal government immediately accepted - it is likely, the AFL expected more competent negotiation. For example, the AFL has staunchly avoided penalty clauses in its own enterprise, while the government has silently accepted them. Moreover, while suggestions have been made regarding a promised investment by the AFL, the government has clearly said that the agreement does not include trustee surety, merely relying on public statements by the AFL. Without binding agreements and penalty clauses, the AFL have received everything it wants from the stadium deal, while Tasmania has received nothing.

Given the position of the state and the AFL, it is imperative that the government make a deal with the AFL which is to the benefit of Tasmania. Seeking to reopen negotiations with the AFL will not only allow Tasmania to ensure its economic sovereignty over the stadium but also provide the opportunity to rectify structural issues with the proposal. For example, refurbishment of stadiums remain an option which may best suit Tasmania and Hobart city planning while sidestepping cost and associated issues with building a stadium in the centre of Hobart.

I think the rest of Australia must be laughing at what we have committed ourselves to. How can that state, with its small population in its financial position at the moment, afford to put a roof over a stadium, a football stadium. They do not even do that in the United Kingdom where they play in snow and ice, and yet they say we have to here because it is a bit cold and wet. Hobart was the second driest capital in Australia last year and if you look at the amount of rain that has been happening in other places, Queensland and Sydney, we are quite dry. Yet, we are being forced to put a roof over the top.

Good governance means you leave the position or the place in a better spot when you leave that organisation. This is not good governance.

​

A constituent sent me the following:
From what I've read, and with certain inferences that have been made, the AFL has never committed to this project as they did with the development of Optus Stadium in Perth or the strategies aimed at stabilising the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney football clubs.

And this person operates in the presence of AFL clubs.

On this basis, it would not be surprising if the AFL Commission, influenced by the club presence, decides to distance itself from the team in Tasmania. This push would come from all clubs due to the broader distribution of funds available to each club and a diminishing talent pool of players in Australia.

Indeed, Tasmanians are upset by the AFL issue and I - and other members probably - have received the following - and you can feel the anger in this person.

I implore you to stand up to the attempts by the Liberal government, supported by Labor, to bypass proper scrutiny of the proposed AFL stadium. I am astonished and deeply saddened by the apparent contempt being shown for the people of Tasmania by the Liberal government and by Tas Labor in the attempt to bypass any checks and balances to get the evidently flawed AFL stadium proposal approved without giving any plausibly serious reasons to do so.

Their utter disrespect for good governance, and the people who have supported them, not least through taxes for their salaries, is gobsmacking and it shows they are completely out of touch with public sentiment and values. It can only damage democracy in Tasmania. Their disregard for the TPC's damning interim report and the expert analysis of Nicholas Gruen and Saul Eslake is appalling. I am genuinely disgusted by their refusal to even recognise that there are budgetary impacts of the stadium, let alone produce any ideas of how to improve the situation.

Both Liberal and Labor continue to deny the fact that there are two separate issues here, the stadium and the AFL team. They each parrot talk about jobs, knowing full well that Tasmania does not have a job shortage, it has a worker shortage.

To conclude - and I thank the honourable members for listening - the Tasmanian AFL team deal should not come at the detriment of the Tasmanian economy. While Tasmanians are supportive of an AFL team franchise, the majority are opposed to the Macquarie Point stadium.

The Tasmanian Liberal government should seek to reopen negotiations with the AFL, ensuring a deal which benefits Tasmania. I tell you what, if the government walked away and said to the AFL, 'Well, sorry, we cannot do that', the rest of Australia would not be too pleased with the AFL either, I do not think. They would be thinking, 'Look what they have done. That poor little state' -

Ms Forrest - A few club presidents that would be.

​

Mr GAFFNEY - Yes, 'but they are a poor little state, worked so hard, they have so many champion players out there and that is the deal we have thrown them'.

Ms Webb - Reputational risk.

Mr GAFFNEY - The government must maintain its role as a determinative to the economic future of Tasmania, particularly regarding a project of such significance as a near billion-dollar stadium. Moreover, the stadium deal as it currently stands is unprecedented, as well as extreme. This deal is unnecessary, it is a detriment to Tasmanians now and into the future, and it should not go forward in its current state.
I am a supporter of football, as I am of most sports, but I cannot and will not vote in favour of something that I think is going to hang around the necks of future generations, and nor should other members in this place. I note the report.
[8.47 p.m.]