Hobart's new AFL stadium shouldn’t go ahead, report finds | 7.30

Key Concepts

• Hobart Stadium Project: A proposed roofed stadium in Hobart, Tasmania, a prerequisite for the state getting an AFL and AFLW team.
• Planning Commission Report: An assessment of the Hobart Stadium project, finding it economically unviable.
• Benefit-Cost Ratio: A comparison of the benefits of the stadium versus its costs. The report found the benefits to be only 45% of the costs.
• Economic Welfare: The overall economic well-being of Tasmanians, which the report argues would be diminished by the stadium.
• State Debt: The financial burden on Tasmania due to the stadium's construction and maintenance.
• AFL/AFLW: Australian Football League and Australian Football League Women's, professional Australian rules football leagues.
• McQuary Point: The proposed location for the Hobart Stadium.

Planning Commission Report Findings

• Overall Assessment: The report is "utterly damning" and recommends that the Macquarie Point project should not proceed.
• Economic Impact: The project represents a "significant net cost" and would "diminish the economic welfare of Tasmanians as a whole."
• Benefit-Cost Ratio: The benefits of the new stadium are only about 45% of the costs.
• Cost per Household: The construction cost equates to about $4,000 per Tasmanian household.
• Tax Implications: State taxes would need to be raised by $50 million a year to pay off the stadium over 30 years.
• Site Suitability: The size, shape, and location of the site are "ill-suited" to a building like the stadium, which would "overwhelm those surrounding buildings and the setting." The stadium is described as a "singular large bulky monolith."

Economic Analysis and Expert Opinion

• Professor John Madden's Research: Economic modeling on major sporting events, including the Sydney Olympics, suggests that the "returns the benefits are pretty well outweighed by the costs." He notes that a benefit-cost ratio of 0.45 is "probably a little worse than some of the others" he has studied.
• General Trend: Literature on stadiums in America indicates that the costs generally outweigh the benefits.

Government Response and Cost Escalation

• Premier Jeremy Rockliff's Stance: Despite the report, the Premier "vehemently disagree[s] with the economic analysis" and believes the "social and economic value of this project" has been "massively underestimated."
• Cost Increases: The estimated cost has risen from an original figure of $715 million to $775 million, then to $945 million in May, and is now at $1.13 billion.
• Funding Sources: The Commonwealth and AFL will contribute, but Tasmania needs to cover the vast majority of the cost.
• Tax Pledge: The Premier states "Unequitically, no. No." when asked if taxes will be raised to pay for the stadium. However, it is implied that Tasmanians will ultimately bear the financial burden through debt, extra taxes, or cuts to services.

Political Implications and Future Steps

• Parliamentary Vote: The Premier will bring an order to parliament this year, giving MPs the final say on whether the stadium should go ahead.
• Labor Opposition: The Labor opposition, which previously supported the stadium, will now consider the report.
• Upper House Uncertainty: There are no guarantees in the upper house, where some independents remain undecided.
• Premier's Resolve: The Premier's "passion and commitment" to the project and the Tasmanian Devils has "only strengthened" his resolve.
• AFL Timeline: The AFL wants the stadium ready for 2029, with the team entering the league in 2028.

Alternative Perspective

• Renegotiation Opportunity: A "premier who was thinking clearly" would see the report as a "lifeline" and an opportunity to "backtrack," "renegotiate the deal" with the AFL to keep the teams without being "broken by this folly of a project."

Synthesis/Conclusion

The Planning Commission's report presents a highly critical assessment of the proposed Hobart Stadium, deeming it economically unviable and detrimental to the economic welfare of Tasmanians. Despite the report's findings and escalating costs, the Premier remains committed to the project, setting up a potential clash in parliament. The future of the stadium hinges on the upcoming parliamentary vote and the willingness of stakeholders to reconsider the project's scope and financial implications. The report suggests a need for renegotiation with the AFL to secure the teams without burdening Tasmania with unsustainable debt.