Stadium is affordable for state

AS A BORN and bred Tasmanian I have been watching almost identical debates about proposed new multipurpose stadia in Hobart and Canberra.

It seems the participants fall into three broad categories. The first group, like me, believes a new stadium will have an enormous, positive economic, social and health impact on these communities and is therefore a critical investment in the future.

The second group just opposes for the sake of opposing, believing our cities should remain frozen in a timewarp, unless of course any proposed growth and change suits their agenda.

These views are shortsighted because they don’t see the bigger picture.

The third group, quite reasonably, is concerned about costs and priorities. What I would say to this group is that the initial cost of new infrastructure needs to be balanced against the investment dividends it will bring.

Yes, the cost is high, but because a multipurpose stadium and precinct will reach so many tourists and the broader community, the returns will be relatively much greater.

Progress costs, but it pays. Second, for example, $375m for the proposed Macquarie Point stadium over the approximately four years of construction represents just over 1 per cent of Tasmania’s $33bn budget for the same period, so the stadium is absolutely affordable.

Also over those four years, the cost represents less than 3 per cent of the state’s $11.2bn health budget.

To suggest that building the stadium is robbing Peter to pay Paul is just not accurate. Peter will have all he needs, and so will Paul. Both will be winners.

The Tasmanian government can afford Macquarie Point, but the community cannot afford not to miss this opportunity for positive investment and growth.

Mark Slater Melba, ACT