By Adam Holmes

Copyright abc

Governments are free to pick and choose which experts they listen to, and which experts they don’t listen to, and then be judged by voters accordingly.

As summarised by Tasmania’s minister responsible for the proposed $1.13 billion Macquarie Point stadium, Eric Abetz:

“These experts, as we have them, their views, we take them into account,” he said.

He was referring to a Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) panel, which recommended against going ahead with the stadium for a range of reasons — from town planning issues to the ongoing cost to the budget.

The Tasmanian government released its formal response this week, arguing that the panel hadn’t considered the unquantifiable benefits, such as “community pride and belonging” stemming from Tasmania having its own AFL team, as well as broader flow-on economic benefits.

The response also shed some light on the experts the government likes.

This includes the Tasmania Football Club and its chief executive officer, Brendon Gale, who was quoted in the government’s response.

Other experts who have been looked upon favourably are what the government calls “hospitality experts”.

These experts have told the government that the stadium could have an annual event calendar of 334 events across 337 days, to bolster the argument that this won’t just be an AFL stadium.

This would include 40 major conferences with at least 450 attendees each across 80 days, 260 corporate dinners and private functions, one Test match, one full arena concert, a National Rugby League (NRL) match, and a Socceroos or Matildas game every four years.

These are the experts the government is listening to.

‘Iconic’ in the eye of the beholder

In any case, the Tasmanian government didn’t initially intend for the TPC to do this report on the stadium.

It wanted a quicker and easier approval process, but was instead brought to the TPC as part of negotiations with former crossbenchers — a political fight that’s in the distant past.

But now it has this TPC expert advice, it must navigate the political fallout.

For example, one of the TPC’s main problems with the stadium is how it sits in the Hobart landscape — a “monolith” that disrupts the visual flow from Kunanyi/Mt Wellington to the River Derwent, the grassy Domain, and the compact heritage CBD.

This was a “subjective” opinion, as Mr Abetz described it, pointing to other Hobart developments such as Tasmania’s tallest building, the Wrest Point casino.

“When the casino was being developed, people were saying it looked like a thermos flask,” he said.

“The home of the Symphony Orchestra, when its designs were revealed, it looked like a water tank, according to some people.

“Today, I think most people would say it is part and parcel of the city’s architecture.”

Essentially, once it’s built, it’s built.

One expert’s “monolith” is another expert’s “gateway to Tasmania”, as the government’s response puts it.

Traffic and transport still to be resolved

Other issues from the TPC will remain in the “to be confirmed” column for at least the next few years.

That’s even with a draft approval order set to be sent to MPs in the next few days, to be voted on in the lower house in November, and the upper house in December.

One of these is traffic management.

The TPC warned of a “shockwave” effect caused by blockages to Hobart’s main arterial routes, all of which converge on the exact location of the stadium — which will sit two blocks from the Royal Hobart Hospital.

Upgrades to bus infrastructure, bus routes, surrounding footpaths, a new pedestrian overpass and the nearby Tasman Highway interchange will all be needed, but are mostly uncosted.

The government proposes submitting a transport management plan no later than 18 months before the stadium becomes operational, which could include prolonged lane closures on major-event days.

Cost benefit ratios and pre-determined outcomes

But where the government and the TPC appear to differ the most is the economic impact of the stadium.

The TPC was scathing: the stadium would “diminish the economic welfare of Tasmania”, accumulate $1.8 billion in debt over 10 years, and the cost benefit ratio was less than 0.5, which has come down further after a cost increase.

The government pointed out that cost-benefit ratios were not always comprehensive, and that it hadn’t accounted for increased visits to Tasmania, “brand exposure” and flow-on investments.

“Cost-benefit analyses are interesting, something that you take into consideration, but it’s not the be-all and end-all,” Mr Abetz said.

“If you did a cost-benefit analysis, or the return on investment, chances are you wouldn’t have built half the roads around Tasmania.”

It all points to a predetermined outcome, according to David Hayward, public policy and social economy Emeritus Professor from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT).

“They’ve decided that they’re going to do it, and it doesn’t matter what the advice is,” he said.

“I haven’t seen many cases when so much is stacked against a pre-determined decision, where the information seems to be questionable, deals were done behind closed doors, and then evidence was searched for afterwards.

Meeting AFL demands

Tasmania is not alone on this front.

The Adelaide Oval redevelopment did not have a business case, although it was constructed at an existing venue, in a broad parkland area with pre-existing extensive public transport and has — on most objective measures — been an overwhelming success.

It was also closely followed by a new Royal Adelaide Hospital, whereas Hobart has no comparable health development of this scale.

Economist Saul Eslake said that in Tasmania’s case, the state was having to meet unreasonable demands.

“The thing that sticks in my craw is that the AFL has made demands of Tasmania where it hadn’t made similar demands of other states,” he said.

“It’s their design, in a place of their choosing, on a timeline of their choosing.

“The cynic in me says the AFL made demands of Tasmania that they expected would not be met.”

But the AFL is another expert that has been listened to throughout the process.

And its advice is that the Tasmanian team needs a CBD-adjacent stadium to be economically viable.