Motion - Tas Planning Commission Draft Integrated Assessment Report - Macquarie Point Stadium Project of State Significance

Tuesday 27 May 2025

Consideration and noting - Tasmanian Planning Commission Draft Integrated Assessment Report - Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance

[4.49 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I have a reasonably short contribution.

I am most disappointed about how divisive this issue has become in our state. Something that should be celebrated and unite people - the thought of getting a team - has become so divisive, and that is such a terrible shame.

I am really surprised that instead of taking on board the comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, the body put in place by the parliament, that identified challenges to the build, it was found necessary to seek advice from high-powered Sydney lawyers MinterEllison. I accept that they won the $449,000 contract for legal advice, public money, to, in their words, 'point out errors and the fact that the report lacked balance'.

Obviously, there are considerable challenges with such a site and one would have thought the government and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation would have been pleased to find out what was necessary to ensure, if possible, a safe build at that site with good access and egress, and to do their best to meet the challenges, rather than denigrate the work of the esteemed panel of the TPC.

I know it has been mentioned, but I am going to list again who they are and their backgrounds. I think it is really important. Gary Prattley, who has experience in planning and urban and regional development across New Zealand and Australia, including senior positions in planning in Tasmania in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul Turner SC, a former assistant solicitor‑general in Tasmania and litigation lawyer since 1981. Lynn Mason AM, a former Local Government Association of Tasmania president with more than 30 years' experience in local government. Shelley Penn AM an architect, urbanist and non-executive director with more than 35 years of experience in architecture and strategic advisory roles. And, Martin Wallace, a former secretary of the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance with experience in public finance and economic analysis. Not to forget, John Ramsay AM, the commissioner. An esteemed panel. But no, it appears a considerable amount of money has been spent on lawyers, and we are now faced with enabling legislation to proceed forthwith regardless of the challenges identified.

I make no secret that I have serious concerns with this site, and I do not believe that Macquarie Point is suitable, but that is a debate for the enabling legislation. I would like to know from the AFL why the site was chosen and how the site was chosen. They should be asked, and they should be able to identify how they came up with Macquarie Point and why they think it is the right place for a stadium.

From my point of view, I was impressed with the report, which was easy to read, clear and concise. I am going to mention a couple of the areas that I think are important.

Health and wellbeing:

(e)          The Proponent has identified in its Social Cultural Analysis report positive impacts -

I am trying to be balanced.

- on social wellbeing via two primary mechanisms: 1) improved certainty of events and attendance, and 2) increased social connection and community building.

(f)           The Proponent claims most strongly in its Social Cultural Analysis report that there would be positive impacts on subjective wellbeing via association with watching team sport and sports fandom.

(g)          The Panel considers there is little to no empirical evidence that a stadium and the events it hosts lead to increases in sport participation or associated physical and mental health benefits.

(h)          The Panel considers that there is some evidence of a potential positive impact on the sense of community and associated sense of well-being due to the establishment of Tasmanian AFL teams …

On Sullivans Cove:

(i)            The Panel considers that the proposed stadium form contradicts several key strategic planning principles and strategies for Sullivans Cove and central Hobart. The Panel notes that the strategic urban design principles for Sullivans Cove are well-established and specific, and remain relevant as guidance to the continued development of the area.

…

(e)     The Panel considers that the stadium's form does not respect the natural layered landform of Hobart between Kunanyi/Mount Wellington and Timtumili Minanya/River Derwent, with the Cove as the centre of the amphitheatre.

To do with scale, they say:

(h)     Key relevant principles of the Planning Review relating to scale are:

·                to control building bulk such that no single building dominates the street to the detriment of its neighbours or the street space, by virtue of its mass and repetition of its facades;

From my memory, having been on council, one of the things that we always tried to do in planning was to ensure that whatever you built was not to the detriment of someone else. That is a really important thing to remember when you are looking at planning.

Of course, we also have the relocation of the Goods Shed:

(d)     The Panel considers the proposed relocation of the Goods Shed to an area remote from Evans Street, where its frontage currently gives it prominence and ease of access, means that it would be less visually and physically accessible except to people using it during events or functions. Its proposed location is in a part of the site which would be inactive outside event/function mode, and is relatively hidden and inaccessible due to its distance from more active areas to the south, and due to the movement barrier created by the cricket wickets.

The Port of Hobart is an interesting one:

(c)          The Panel considers the current traffic and parking arrangements for coaches and other vehicles to pick up and drop off cruise ship passengers adjacent to or nearby the cruise terminal is likely to be either limited or not practicable during peak pedestrian movement periods associated with events at the stadium. This would affect both businesses providing coach and touring services and visitors to Tasmania.

(d)     The Panel notes that the Summary Report provided by the Proponent … considers that:

·                there is likely to be overlap between major events and the departure of cruise ships

·                based on forecast schedules, cruise ship departures may coincide with local road closures and very high pedestrian activity

·                the overlap between events and cruise ships appears to be manageable; and

·                there is a need for future traffic management plans to address the needs of cruise ships, TasPorts' tenants and the stadium.

(e)     As proposed, the operation of the stadium would limit, and may at times remove, the existing vehicular access to, and parking at, the wharf and terminal for a range of vehicles serving the needs of cruise ship passengers. While both TasPorts and the Proponent have identified this as a challenge that would need to be managed, there is no basis for the Panel to assess whether suitable access can be provided, based on the information provided.

The TSO: I, together with the honourable members for McIntyre and Huon, met today with a member of the TSO to actually have a look. They have come up with a certain strategy that needs to be legislated to improve the conditions there but, of course, it is still quite an unknown.

Pedestrian movement:

(a)          The Panel considers that the Project creates problematic pedestrian movement issues for event patrons and the broader community. These include a range of issues, with particular concerns relating to the safety, capacity and convenience of pedestrian movement pathways and options following high-capacity events.

…

(c)          The Panel generally considers that pathways adjacent to roads and signalised street crossings in the area have not been designed for, and lack sufficient space to enable changes, to accommodate pedestrian flows associated with a stadium.

…

(e)          The Panel considers it is essential that plans for the development of pedestrian infrastructure and management of pedestrian movement enable the Davey Street/Franklin Wharf routes towards Salamanca and the city to be used in a safe and convenient manner for peak post‑event movements.

(f)           The Panel acknowledges there are a number of non-infrastructure management actions that may be taken to help mitigate pedestrian related risks and issues. These may include:

·                providing post-event activities that encourage or direct people to exit the stadium over a longer period; and

·                temporary measures such as clearly designated pathways, signs, physical barriers and enforcing attendants, and information technology.

The Panel considers, however, that in general, pedestrians would tend to take the most direct and convenient route to their chosen destination, even when that route is compromised in terms of capacity. A lack of suitable infrastructure or adequate space for safe pedestrian movement pathways is extremely unlikely to prevent a large proportion of people continuing to choose what they perceive or know to be the most direct route.

Contamination and environmental effects:

Overall, the Panel finds that the limited understanding of the current contamination conditions of the site, and the consequent uncertainty on contamination and disposal requirements are likely to affect the cost and timeframes of construction.

…

Stormwater released from the site would not achieve water quality targets, and the effect of this release on marine ecology remains unknown.

…

Legacy contamination is a feature of the broader Macquarie Point development site due to a sustained history of industrial use including rail, gasworks and bulk fuel storage and handling, as well as the reclamation of large areas from the estuary using uncontrolled fill. Consequently, areas of contamination are a feature of the development site, albeit patchy in extent.

…

The Panel notes contamination characteristics of excavated material to be removed from site during bulk earth work (site preparation) are also key to determining disposal costs.

There is a lot more in the report to read, but they are from the few areas outlined. I cannot understand at all how the government could allow the AFL to come up with Macquarie Point as the site for the stadium. It totally blows my mind. The Tasmanian Planning Commission ‑ I have read who they are; they are an esteemed panel. They are now being sidelined, which I find quite disturbing. They are simply seeking answers to key questions to enable a safe build, if possible.

I believe if the AFL wants to grow the game, it would want to encourage Tasmanians to actually be part of it. Many Tasmanians have been part of the AFL's other teams. I am sure if they were asked how they can determine, after reading the Tasmanian Planning Commission findings - I do accept that MinterEllison has found its own reasoning, which I find quite disturbing, that they could denigrate the esteemed panel in such a manner, and it be allowed to happen in such a manner when all the panel is trying to do is to make sure that anything built at that site is safe and appropriate.

I note the report. I thank the member for bringing it forward. I hope that our government takes the time to ask the AFL to meet with them and ask them whether they genuinely believe that the Macquarie Point site is appropriate to build a stadium.