The recently proposed Macquarie Point stadium in Tasmania created a huge buzz. Community members organized at a public forum to explore its impacts and possibilities. Estimated to cost around $1 billion, the stadium is a pivotal condition for Tasmania’s entry into the Australian Football League (AFL). The Tasmanian government responded by announcing that it would fully fund the project’s construction with reallocated existing funds and additional borrowing. They’ve reversed course on plans to pursue private investment.
As discussions continued, business leaders and residents weighed in from different stakeholders on the project. The Tasmanian Planning Commission provided an estimated cost of the stadium, but the size and location there was a lot of pushback. When completed, the proposed structure will stand 10 times higher than Tasmania’s own iconic Tasman Bridge. This has led some residents to call into question whether it’s really the best use for the site.
Government Funding and Financial Strategy
Conditions of the deal require the Tasmanian government to fund the stadium entirely through public resources. This decision represents a departure from previous plans, which called for attracting private investment to help cover the construction costs. The government plans to use other money and borrow much more to meet the project’s needs.
To further Brazil’s financial strategy officials intend to divest whole chunks of the wider and larger Macquarie Point precinct to realize their value. This sale is meant to raise enough money to cover the cost of the loan that will be needed to finance the construction of the new stadium.
“The building itself is drawn to fit, but what we’re not seeing is all of the energy of that building and its servicing requirements.” – Mat Hinds
Local advocates have been vocal about the need to make sure that taxpayers don’t pay the steep price for this risky business venture. Specialists Miriam Beswick and Rebekah Pentland argue that the three parties need to come together. Most of all, they need to find a way forward that lowers risk for the American taxpayer.
Community Responses and Concerns
Supporters of the stadium argue it would increase tourism and benefit other local businesses. That enthusiasm is not widely held among community members. Environmentalists and community advocates have expressed worry that the stadium’s enormous footprint would newly devastate swaths of the local environment. T4 Alliance’s Mat Hinds articulated those concerns as forcefully as anyone. To express this he argued that the structure is 10 meters taller than the Tasman Bridge and asked if it really responds to the site.
Opponents raised similar arguments about the long-term impacts, including for future generations. Beswick and Pentland recognized that fact that the club wanted a new stadium. They stressed that this goal must not be achieved at the expense of future generations or create a two-state solution.
Against these dissenting voices, supporters—including the tourism and hospitality industry—argue that the stadium would create jobs and invigorate the economy. Steve Old described the atmosphere as “Dark Mofo on steroids” for the hospitality sector. He thinks it can help smaller, local businesses by luring more tourism and major events to town.
The AFL’s Role and Future Implications
The AFL’s support for the proposal continues to be an important factor in Tasmania getting its own team in the national competition. Stakeholders underscored the need for a new roofed stadium to make the Tasmania Devils competitive in the league. Executive Director Kath McCann shared her excitement about what this new relationship means. She claimed, “The AFL is absolutely putting this club into a position to succeed,” and mentioned the ripple economic effects that will result from new businesses forming because of increased traffic to the area.
“Without the stadium or without the team, how else could the state offer the same standard of opportunities that the Tasmania Football Club has created and will continue to create?” – Lily Mills
While some community members are hesitant about moving forward with the stadium project, others are urging collaboration among key stakeholders. Trade Minister Eric Abetz told the Senate, “Is there that option of renegotiating? Look you don’t say never.” He reiterated that he wants to push forward on the agreement as it currently exists.
