Macquarie Point Stadium: Support It. Eyes Open.
I support the Tasmania Devils and I support the stadium. What I will not do is stay silent while $865.7 million of public money is committed to a private sporting body on the basis of an agreement the public has never seen. This page is the public record of every question asked, every answer received, and every step taken.
My Position
The Tasmania Devils will be a genuinely transformative addition to Tasmanian sport and identity. That is precisely why the project deserves more scrutiny, not less. Every major Australian public construction project built under a lump sum contract has incurred cost overruns. The question is not whether this one will — the question is who pays when it does.
The AFL is contributing approximately $15 million to a project with total state exposure of $865.7 million. That is less than two percent of the public liability. A private body contributing two percent of the capital does not normally get to set all of the terms. The crossbench, the parliament, and the public should ensure it doesn’t.
The Five Questions the Government Has Not Answered
On 11 March 2026 I wrote to Treasurer Eric Abetz asking for his written position on five investor protection conditions. On 22 April I received a reply that acknowledged each topic and answered none of the questions. The five questions remain unanswered as of April 2026.
Will construction be contingent on a funded transport solution being contractually committed before a sod is turned? The Treasurer referenced studies. Studies are not a funded plan.
Are the ‘assurances’ the franchise cannot be moved legally binding contractual terms with financial penalties, or non-binding comfort letters? Will the Agreement be tabled in Parliament before January 2027?
The Treasurer said risk is ‘shared’ under a lump sum Design and Construct contract. What is the government’s contingency figure and what is the maximum financial exposure the state carries under variation and latent conditions clauses? (This question was not addressed at all.)
Naming rights revenue will support Stadiums Tasmania’s operating costs. Is there any mechanism under which surpluses beyond operating costs return to consolidated revenue as a dividend on the public’s investment?
The Treasurer pointed to existing Mac Point precinct housing plans. These predate the stadium decision. What additional housing has the government committed specifically as an offset for the opportunity cost of the $375 million allocation?
Correspondence Timeline
-
11 March 2026
Letter to Treasurer Eric Abetz MLC — five investor protection conditions on the stadium. Requested written responses to each. View enclosures → -
22 April 2026
Abetz reply received. Acknowledged all five topics. Answered none of the specific questions. Transport referenced “studies.” Cost overruns not addressed. Housing response cited pre-existing precinct plans. -
26 April 2026
Follow-up letter to Premier Rockliff — detailed analysis of why each Abetz answer was insufficient. Five new binary questions requiring yes/no answers by 16 May 2026. Download → -
26 April 2026
Letter to Tasmanian crossbench (independents + Greens) — asking them to use parliamentary mechanisms: Questions on Notice, Committee Referral, Budget Estimates, tabling of the Agreement. Download → -
25 April 2026
Reply from Vica Bayley MP (Greens Deputy Leader, Clark) — confirmed Greens will continue parliamentary scrutiny; raised total state exposure of $865.7m including MPDC borrowings; asked to meet.
Greens Response: The $865.7 Million Revelation
On 25 April 2026, Vica Bayley MP (Greens Deputy Leader, Member for Clark) replied to the crossbench letter. Her response contained a critical clarification on the true scale of the public liability:
— Vica Bayley MP, 25 April 2026
This reframes the entire debate. The government presents the project as a $375 million state contribution. The real state exposure — including the Mac Point Development Corporation’s borrowings, which are backed entirely by the state — is $865.7 million. Every dollar of debt service comes from the same budget as health and education.
Which Agreement Are We Talking About?
The Club Funding and Development Agreement between the state and the AFL has been published on the State Growth website. That document establishes the funding commitment.
What has not been publicly released — and what Parliament has not scrutinised — is the full operational agreement governing what happens when things go wrong: the relocation protections, the cost overrun liability clauses, the variation provisions, and the contingency provisions that determine the state’s maximum financial exposure. These are the documents that matter most, and they are the documents the public has not seen.
What Can Be Done Before January 2027
I have asked the Tasmanian crossbench to use four parliamentary mechanisms before the construction contract is awarded:
Questions on Notice
Lodge the five questions as formal Questions on Notice. The government must answer in writing on the parliamentary record.
Committee Referral
Refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts — who can request the Agreement, contract documents, and cost overrun modelling.
Budget Estimates
At the next budget estimates hearings, require the Treasurer to answer these questions on the record, under oath, with figures.
Table the Agreement
Move or request that the full Agreement be tabled in Parliament before the construction contract is signed.