Put aside the politicking and parochialism so state can prosper off back of Olympics

New stadium will deliver, writes Peter Gutwein

Regional parochialism can either create positive outcomes or it can further divide and potentially cost opportunities. I say potentially cost, as I believe that an AFL team, a roofed entertainment precinct and an upgraded UTAS Stadium will be delivered because the reasons are sound.

History teaches us that stadium developments follow a well-trodden path that see opponents claiming they aren’t affordable and reduce funding to services like health and social housing. All the while failing to recognise they are economic enablers which grow the economy and generate more revenue for areas of need.

With our own AFL Taskforce strongly backing a team and the economic returns it would bring, along with the need for investment in upgraded facilities, I felt confident last year that we should stay on the front foot.

Of key import is timing. The taskforce was clear that a future roofed stadium was necessary, and right now there is a window of opportunity due to the 2032 Brisbane Olympic Games. These games will see billions of dollars of federal funding flow and there could not be a better time to seek funding to underpin new sports and entertainment facilities that will catalyse additional development and urban renewal.

That’s why on March 1, 2022, due to an improving budget and a growing need, I firstly announced about $2.5bn of investment into health and housing over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, this appears to have been largely overlooked by stadium opponents and the media.

In that same speech I also announced the upgrade of UTAS, Dial Park in the North West and the

new roofed stadium.

But why announce a new roofed stadium at all to support the AFL bid when the taskforce report was only aspirational in terms of the new roofed stadium, and albeit after a tense negotiation, which included threats of ending contracts, the AFL and Gillon McLachlan were now largely on side.

Importantly it must be understood that it was never just the AFL and its chief executive we needed. We had to also get the presidents and key administrators. Many were wary of the financial implications for their own teams and a number were downright hostile and critical.

This was no surprise. Our own taskforce report found us wanting in some areas, especially stadia, stating, “the existing Tasmanian AFL stadia capacities are incapable of hosting the forecasted average attendance”, and they were clear that “a longerterm aspiration should be a roofed, CBD-based ‘Adelaide Oval’ multipurpose facility developed for Hobart”.

In addition, I was also acutely aware of the difficulties Tasmania faces in attracting world class artists and events of 20,000 or more patrons when our weather can be a deciding factor. The show must go on, but we can’t guarantee that, especially in spring and autumn when the big tours start and end, and as a result they don’t come.

Furthermore, it’s not the 1990s and new generation patrons will no longer pay to be in the rain and cold when they can get their sports and entertainment fix on so many different media platforms.

We also need a venue that can compete for visitors with other capital cities, and while I know it galls some people in the North, the truth of the matter is that Hobart is our capital, and the players also want the team there.

Let’s ignore the parochialism and the politicking and deal with the facts. Will UTAS Stadium still host blockbusters? Yes. Will there be more content at UTAS Stadium? Yes, as there will be no loss of AFL games, plus new VFL and AFLW games. Is an upgrade still planned for UTAS Stadium? Yes. Will our own team draw bigger crowds and provide a bigger return for Launceston? Yes. Will our own team, a new stadium and an upgraded UTAS Stadium deliver significant economic and social benefits for the state overall? Yes, it undoubtably will.

Unfortunately, even the Launceston-based Examiner newspaper appears to have lost sight of the goal of our own team. Rather than demanding, as they would have in the past, for federal funding for projects that improve the state and also the North, they consistently serve up parochial reasons that provide excuses for funding to be denied.

This has been a long journey and the decision now rests with the Prime Minister. I hope that Mr Albanese understands the catalyst that our own team will be and that he sets aside the politicking and the parochialism and supports the state to get what it so richly deserves.