The proposed stadium in Tasmania, projected to cost $1.13 billion, has successfully passed its initial legislative hurdle. The lower house of the state parliament approved the order to build the stadium on November 2, 2023, with a vote tally of 25 to 9. This outcome was anticipated, bolstered by support from both the governing Liberal party and the Labor opposition. However, the proposal now enters a critical phase as it awaits a vote in the upper house, scheduled for early December 2023, where a small group of independent Members of Parliament will play a pivotal role in determining its future.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff, who negotiated the deal with the AFL, emphasized the importance of the stadium for Tasmania, stating that the project reflects a long-held aspiration for many residents. He remarked in parliament, “People will be aghast if we say no to what we’ve fought for… for decades.”
Despite the support from the Labor party leader, Josh Willie, who confirmed his party’s intention to vote in favor of the stadium, he raised concerns about the management of the project by the Liberal government, labeling it “abysmal.” Willie indicated that trust in the government’s ability to deliver remains low, yet he believes that not pursuing the opportunity could be detrimental for Tasmania. He noted that the AFL Commission is prepared to withdraw its support for the Tasmanian Devils if the stadium is not constructed.
The stadium proposal has ignited a significant divide within the community and has become a focal point for political debate, especially given Tasmania’s escalating budget debt, projected to reach $10 billion by 2028/29. Critics argue that the state should prioritize more pressing needs rather than investing in a sports facility. Rosalie Woodruff, the leader of the Greens party, stated, “We have already more than earned the right to join the league, without the strings of a $1 billion stadium attached.”
Independent MP Kristie Johnston echoed these sentiments, asserting that many residents are struggling with basic necessities and that the state budget reflects similar challenges. “When you are putting the groceries on the credit card… you shouldn’t be buying a boat,” she contended, highlighting concerns about fiscal responsibility.
On the other hand, Eric Abetz, the Minister for Macquarie Point Urban Renewal, defended the project, arguing that failure to build the stadium would deter young aspirants and damage the state’s reputation. He drew a comparison between the potential stadium and the Eiffel Tower, which faced initial opposition but eventually became an iconic symbol. Abetz acknowledged criticisms regarding the government’s infrastructure delivery but insisted that setbacks should not prevent future ambitions.
The AFL has maintained a firm stance of “no stadium, no team,” underscoring the urgency of the project. The funding structure includes a state contribution of $375 million, $240 million from the Commonwealth, and $15 million from the AFL, with the rest sourced through state borrowings.
Concerns about the project’s financial viability have been raised by the state’s planning commission, which recommended against proceeding, citing that the costs outweighed the benefits and that the stadium does not align with the heritage status of the waterfront area. The upcoming decision in the upper house, particularly from independents like Dean Harriss and Bec Thomas, will be crucial as they have expressed reservations regarding the stadium’s financial implications.
If the stadium is not completed by the club’s second season in 2029, the government could face significant financial penalties, adding further pressure to the ongoing debates surrounding this contentious project. As Tasmania stands at a crossroads, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this long-discussed stadium will become a reality or fade into a contentious political memory.
