The Tasmanian Planning Commission has ruled that the costs of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium outweigh the benefits by more than two to one – but found the project still comes with some positives.
After a year of work, the commission’s report found the Hobart waterfront development would deliver around $435 million in economic and social benefits over 30 years.
But that comes against a $974 million price tag.
The panel, recommending the stadium not proceed, recognised several economic advantages from the proposal.
“The main economic benefits to Tasmania from building the project arise from the level of new spending by visitors from outside the state who attend events at the stadium but who otherwise would not have visited Tasmania if there was no Macquarie Point stadium,” it said.
Keeping Tasmanians from travelling interstate for major events would also keep money in the state.
“The spending by Tasmanians attending events at the stadium instead of travelling interstate to attend those events” would keep money in the local economy, the report found.
On top of that, the AFL has pledged $33.5 million a year for 10 years to fund grassroots football and talent pathways.
The stadium would create an estimated 203 full-time equivalent jobs during operations, the panel found.
The stadium itself was projected to support 203 full-time jobs once operational, with KPMG tipping construction would temporarily boost Gross State Product by up to $329 million over three years.
The report also pointed to wider social benefits, including greater “civic pride and social cohesion”.
Even those who never attend a game or concert could feel the lift, it said.
Health and productivity improvements were expected through more sports participation, with the so-called “inspiration effect” of having professional teams based locally.
Attendees would also enjoy what economists call ‘consumer surplus’ – the extra value they get above the price of tickets, food and transport.
Tasmania’s brand and overall liveability would likely get a boost too, though the report noted these gains were hard to measure.
Ultimately, the negatives outweighed the positives. The commission calculated the cost would equal about $5,900 for every non-welfare Tasmanian household.
Without tax increases, the state would face a $1 billion loan at completion, growing to $1.8 billion after 10 years due to compound interest and ongoing subsidies.
“The panel’s cost benefit analysis shows that the construction and operation of the stadium results in a substantial net social cost to the Tasmanian community,” it read.
There were also strong concerns about heritage impacts on landmarks including the Cenotaph, Royal Engineers Building and Hunter Street.
These effects were described as “unacceptable” and “irreversible”. The stadium was also judged to breach key planning principles for Sullivans Cove.
Its roof and scale would dominate the natural amphitheatre and diminish the Domain headland’s prominence.
“It will irrevocably change, for the worse in the opinion of the panel, the way in which the landscape and urban pattern is appreciated and understood,” the panel said.
While acknowledging the stadium would generate intensive activity during events, the panel found surrounding areas would likely remain “dormant outside of event mode”.
The final cost-benefit ratio came in at 0.45 – meaning the benefits added up to less than half the costs. Even if realised, the economic lift would be less than 0.1% of Tasmania’s GDP.
The panel identified “optimism bias” in the proponent’s assumptions and noted significant risks that costs could exceed estimates while benefits fell short of projections.
The final decision rests with both houses of parliament, who could consider the report and the future of the stadium as early as next week.
Despite the findings, Premier Jeremy Rockliff has vowed to push ahead.
“We will ensure, as we’ve always done, that the Macquarie Point stadium and all the dreams and the aspirations and the economic and social opportunities presented with the Macquarie Point stadium, the precinct and indeed the Tasmanian Devils footy team will come to fruition,” he said.
He said today was “just another step” in the lengthy process to get the stadium built.
“I note that the planning report has said that this is constructible,” Rockliff said.
“When it comes to those matters concerning Tasmanians around safety and transport and other key matters, they can all be resolved.”
Rockliff argued the commission had underestimated the economic and social value of the wider precinct redevelopment.
“I am as enthusiastic about this project and all the opportunities that it will bring as I’ve always been,” he said.
“My passion and my commitment to this project, the Tasmanian Devils and the aspirations of our young people has only strengthened my resolve as a result of the report today. We can do this.”
The Greens, however, say the report should be the end of the road.
“Jeremy Rockliff must finally ditch his plan for a new stadium, following the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s clear recommendation that the project not proceed because of a raft of negative impacts,” Clark MP Vica Bayley said.
“Budget blowouts will leave the stadium costing more than a billion dollars and Tasmanians footing the majority of the bill.”
