Tasmania must not myth the opportunity to address real social issues

There are much higher priorities than a new AFL stadium in Hobart, writes Peter Williams

THE story titled “New stadium myths busted” (Mercury, December 3), quoting comments by Jim Wilkinson and Russell Hanson, was of particular interest to me. That’s because I may be one of the scribes Mr Wilkinson and Mr Hanson had “had enough of”, in spreading myth-information about our bid for inclusion in the AFL’s almost national competition and the proposed stadium at Macquarie Point.

One of the reasons for misinformation is, of course, the lack of clear information from those in charge of this particular project – in this case the state government.

I would like to make a few comments, but before doing so would bring to attention the wonderful job that Russell Hanson did in relation to the original task force submission.

I don’t believe that has previously been publicly acknowledged, and I think it should have been.

Then I would like to say I thought their comments about the leader of the opposition were wrong. I have no allegiance to any political party and know nobody. But the clear impression I have from seeing reports on TV and in the newspapers is that both the Opposition Leader Bec White and Greens Leader Cassy O’Connor have been steadfast in supporting a Tasmanian team, but even more steadfast in opposing the building of a stadium, for the very same reasons that I – and I would argue the overwhelming majority of the community – would say there are simply far more important things for our money to be spent on.

We want to see the government do more to prevent people dying while waiting for admission to hospital, and to do more to reduce waiting lists for medical treatment, and to get a roof over their head.

These are all basic things that need to be fixed. And if a political leader believes one thing, but says another, just to curry favour with the media or vested interests, then that is very weak.

Mr Wilkinson and Mr Hanson have referred to the enormous economic benefit that will flow from the construction of a stadium – “4200 jobs during construction and 950 ongoing”. Those figures, provided by consultants, were not intended to mislead, but have to be taken in the context of the modelling used to arrive at those figures. They say the “business case” for the stadium will

be produced “very shortly”. I wouldn’t mind a dollar for every time Ms White had asked about the business case in parliament. Should not that have been the very first thing that the government had produced before even going down this path?

Mr Wilkinson and Mr Hanson also point out that there is a need for a new stadium because there is a likely capacity problem for “big” games at Bellerive Oval.

Colin Carter acknowledged that in his report (an AFL-commissioned independent report that outlined the business case for an AFL team for Tasmania), but it did not deter him from recommending acceptance of our submission. There were also capacity problems when the MCG started off as a paddock.

They also dispute that the building of a new stadium was not part of the submission. There is no question the benefits of a new stadium were written about, but I don’t believe it was part of the submission. Nor did the premier, before being told otherwise by Gillon McLachlan. That’s when I believe the premier should have told Mr McLachlan what he could do with the gun at his head.

The remaining part of the Mercury article relates to that dirty word, “parochialism”. Space constraints will not allow me to say much about that, except to note that it seems what the government meant when they said Tassie games would be shared between Hobart and Launceston, they did not mean “equally’’. According to Mr Wilkinson and Mr Hanson, there will be seven games in Hobart and four games in Launceston. Stand back for the inevitable backlash that will come from the North when the reality of that hits home.

Peter Williams is an Aussie Rules fan concerned about the future of the sport in this state.