Stadiums Tasmania Bill 2021
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I appreciate very much the contributions of other members on the bill. I found it really interesting to be listening to those and to have that added on to the consideration we gave yesterday to the proposal for an inquiry on this bill. I will speak briefly. I do not need to reiterate what others have spoken very well on and questions already effectively raised. I particularly note the matters raised by the member for Mersey, in relation to seeking an explanation or further clarity on why this particular structure for this entity has been arrived at and some explanation about why, rather than other options that were available, given there would have been a number of options available. I am quite interested to hear the Government’s response to those questions put. I also particularly note the member for Hobart, just now again raising matters also of regular interest to me in this place. Such matters on scrutiny and accountability, how that will function and how effectively is being achieved and given effect through this legislation. Those are always incredibly important things for – particularly this Chamber – to raise, look at and look to optimise as bills come through. Thanks to the member for Hobart for raising those and I second and reiterate that.
I appreciate there is a good rationale for changing from the current ownership arrangements and management arrangements we have for some of our existing stadium facilities. I hear that loud and clear, especially from those who have current responsibilities in that area and feel they really need or could best be undertaken by a new entity, or by the state Government in some form. I appreciate there is potentially value in this opportunity for a statewide perspective, through the planning; the investment; the delivery and then the management of major stadium facilities across our state. We could achieve some good, comprehensive outcomes for all our communities if we take a statewide perspective, as long as we are also able to look at local nuance and need and not have larger urban areas of our state run roughshod over the needs of smaller communities and more rural and regional areas.
On that, I did note the language used in the second reading speech in relation to the need for and I think the quote is:
An appropriate balance of being commercially-focused and community-minded.
That sounds great and is easy to say. I am quite interested to understand how that will be achieved in practice within this model. It is a whole other matter to make that fairly simple statement a reality. Things like the make-up of the board of this new entity, the parameters provided to it through ministerial directions and expectations, the practices it has in terms of consultation with communities and identification of need – all these sorts of matters will feed into how well in practice this gives effect to this balance suggested, between being commercially-focussed and community-minded. I am interested to hear from the Government, having asserted that, that will be a part of this new entity and how they see that best being achieved.
This is a two-stage process we are in and this is the first stage in which the bill sets up the structure and the functioning of an entity. Then that next bill, which we will be expecting to see come to us, is about the transfer of the current assets there and some of those specific arrangements on that. That second state, as has been quite effectively foreshadowed in yesterday’s discussion on a possible inquiry and then today’s discussion on the bill. We quite thoroughly foreshadowed the level of scrutiny of the second state in that next bill that may come to us later in the year will be high and we will be looking to examine the detail with much interest.
Mr President, others have noted what we could perhaps term the edifice in the room, around this debate – that edifice being the potential stadium on the Hobart waterfront. It is interesting to have that present as we discuss this bill because it is not necessarily directly centered in this bill, although as others have pointed out, what we are setting up in this bill if it passes, is the mechanism for an entity that, we understand, will be doing the business case. I presume they will then shepherd the investment, planning and implementation of that project if it comes to pass.
This potential edifice in the room is interesting. The member for Mersey referenced in his contribution that Australian classic The Castle in relation to this, which I found amusing. It brought to mind for me that excellent TV series Utopia, which I think was the same creative team. Members might recall in season 1 of Utopia, episode 6, titled ‘Then we can build it’. In that episode, the fictional nation building authority is casting about for a project in Tasmania that the federal government could throw some money at.
And 14th on the list, but straight to the top, was a stadium! It was proposed by a sensible fellow at the top of that fictional authority that Tasmania needed sensible investment, and he suggests, funnily enough:
No, they do not need a stadium. I tell you what they need. They need better roads, better rail. They need a freight link to the mainland, industry development, airport runway extension [et cetera, et cetera.]
Mr President, I think that episode came to air in 2014.
Ms Rattray – Did they mention any housing?
Ms WEBB – No, they did not. But we have certainly added to that list, in many contributions, about where we think Tasmania might best spend three quarters of a billion dollars on, if not more. Many suggestions and much canvassing of community opinion would be needed to arrive at where best to put such investment. No doubt, that discussion about the stadium will continue, as well as discussions about other opportunities we have for considering our needs and how we meet them.
I certainly support the intent of this bill. If we go through to the Committee stage I would like to have some more detailed questions to debate some of the elements of it. I appreciate other members’ more comprehensive contributions and I look forward to answers to those contributions to inform us about the detail if we go to that Committee stage.
