Two independent MLCs who hold Tasmania’s AFL dream in their hands have cast serious doubt on the $1.13 billion Macquarie Point stadium, questioning whether the debt-laden state can afford it.
Dean Harriss and Bec Thomas used their budget reply speeches this week to challenge the financial case for the project, leaving the government scrambling to win them over ahead of a crucial upper house vote next month.
If both vote against the stadium, the plan dies and with it, Tasmania’s hopes for an AFL team.
The House of Assembly will debate the stadium order on Thursday.
With 25 of the chamber’s 35 members backing the proposal, including both major parties and independent David O’Byrne, passage there is all but assured.
The real battle looms in the Legislative Council, where debate begins in December.
The government needs at least eight votes from the 15-member upper house. It has six locked in from Liberal and Labor members.
Four MLCs have already declared their opposition, leaving five independents holding the balance of power: Dean Harriss, Casey Hiscutt, Ruth Forrest, Tania Rattray and Bec Thomas.
The project needs the support of at least three of them to proceed.
If the vote is tied, council president Craig Farrell would cast the deciding vote. Convention dictates he would vote against, sinking the stadium.
Harriss broke his silence on the stadium in parliament on Tuesday, delivering a scathing critique of the government’s financial management.
“If we can’t pay for essential services without running up repeated billion dollar deficits, it is reasonable to ask the question: how can we afford a billion dollar stadium?” he said.
“And if we can’t build a ferry terminal without the budget blowing out more than five times from $90 million to $493 million and counting and timeframes blowing out by years, how are we going to keep financial control of the much larger stadium project?”
He said government spending needed “much more scrutiny”.
“We are living beyond our means and stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for it,” he said.
“The longer it goes on, the harder and more severe the eventual correction will need to be.”
The stadium would add $1.8 billion to state debt over 10 years, on top of net debt already forecast to hit $10 billion by 2028.
Thomas has been more vocal but remains undecided, continuing to seek answers from the government.
The former Glenorchy mayor said high-performance sporting facilities represented “exorbitant proposed expenditure” that served “an elite few”.
Her support, she said, was “contingent on the government adequately funding grassroots sport” alongside elite infrastructure.
“And right now the numbers in this budget show that this is not occurring and it’s not projected to occur over the forward estimates,” she said.
Thomas said the government must clearly explain how it intends to pay for the project, whether by raising revenue or cutting elsewhere.
“I’ll continue to seek clarity from the government on this … it’s really not clear in this budget how the government intends to pay for the proposed new stadium asset,” she said.
“I remain open-minded and of course this is a decision for another day, should the order pass through the other place.”
Sport Minister Nick Duigan acknowledged on Wednesday that the government still has work to do.
“I was there and heard both of those members express their concerns. I think it’s on the government to change their mind,” he said.
“We see this as a hugely important project for Tasmania. We make no apologies for that … but this is too important to let slide.”
Duigan said the government would address the concerns raised during the budget debates.
“They’ve got questions that they’d like to see answered and we would like to work with them to give them as much comfort as possible so that they can carry this project forward,” he said.
“This will be a project that delivers returns for our state for the next half of a century at least.”
“If we keep closing the doors to these kinds of opportunities, then it will be to the great detriment of Tasmania.”
