Thousands attend anti-stadium rally in Hobart, but minister says, 'We've got to get on with it'
Thousands of people have rallied on parliament lawns in Hobart to oppose the proposed Macquarie Point stadium and the Tasmanian government's decision to scrap the current planning process for it.
The stadium, a condition of Tasmania's AFL licence, is currently being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission as a project of state significance.
But the government has announced it will abandon that process and instead attempt to get the stadium built through special enabling legislation.
"They're ripping up the rule book again, once again playing dictatorship not going through the planning process," Senator Jacqui Lambie — who remains in a battle to retain her Senate seat following last weekend's election — said at the rally.
"Disgraceful. What sort of leadership is that?
"And now they're going to push through a bill through to get this stadium built and threatening Tasmania's MPs that it will be their fault if they don't get it up again.
"It's your fault [Premier Jeremy] Rockliff. It's your fault."
Senator Lambie was also critical of the government's "spin" when it comes to funding for the stadium.
On Monday, the ABC revealed the Tasmanian government had finalised its preferred funding method for the proposed Macquarie Point stadium, settling on a debt-funded model to pay for the project, which would include borrowing any shortfall of funds through the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC).
Opponents have claimed the premier has broken a promise — that Tasmania's contribution to the stadium would be $375 million, and "not one red cent more".
But the government has said borrowing money to fund the stadium was always the intention, and that it has the receipts to prove it.
"Anyone who knows about this infrastructure knows the cost blowout, but this government only knows spin; say what you can to get out of trouble that day and keep barrelling on," Senator Lambie said.
Independent Clark MP Kristie Johnston also spoke at the rally, and said the stadium's costs were "grossly underestimated, and its benefits overstated".
Tasmanian Greens MLC Cassy O'Connor said community anger had been growing since it was announced the project of state significance process would be abandoned for the stadium.
"The strong message from today's rally is that, overwhelmingly, Tasmanians want to keep the team we've earned and deserve, but they reject a multi-billion dollar stadium and its drain on the public purse for generations," Ms O'Connor said.
Sports Minister Nick Duigan said stadium builds were contentious across Australia and around the world, but he said the Macquarie Point stadium was critical for the viability of the Tasmania Devils AFL club.
"I'd be so disappointed if we missed our chance," Mr Duigan said.
Asked if the government had been up-front with Tasmanians over the funding structure for the stadium, Mr Duigan said he believed it had been.
"I believe there has always been borrowings mentioned in the stadium agreement in the AFL agreement around land at Macquarie Point," he said.
"The premier hasn't deviated one inch from his line about delivering the team for Tasmania.
"If we are going to deliver the stadium infrastructure and the team in the timeline that is available to us we've got to get on with it."
At the rally, Labor was criticised for its promise to support the enabling legislation, despite not having seen it, and for its change of position on the stadium.
Ms Johnston said Labor's position on the stadium was "really insulting".
"Because let's face it, when it comes to the stadium, Labor has had more positions than a Kama Sutra book," Ms Johnston said.
"They are going to fake scrutiny by asking a few questions but at the end of the day they are Liberal lite and are willing to vote for it no matter what.
"It is a blatant betrayal of their supporters and the community who need an effective opposition."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
12 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Trade Minister Don Farrell says meeting with US Trade Rep Jamieson Greer was ‘friendly,' not ‘difficult'
Trade Minister Don Farrell has detailed the discussion he had with his US counterpart Jamieson Greer, revealing he had the 'greatest confidence' in Anthony Albanese during an expected meeting with Donald Trump next weekend. Senator Farrell spoke to the US Trade Representative while in Paris last week and characterised the talk as 'friendly'. Despite this, he maintained the tariffs were 'simply unjustified', highlighting Australia's trade surplus with the US. Figures indicate Australia buys about $70bn worth of goods from the US, compared to the $30bn of exports Australia sells to America. 'It wasn't a difficult discussion in terms of the relationship between us, and I am certainly of the view that we have the opportunity to continue to talk with Jamieson and Commerce Secretary Lutnick to put our case across,' he said. Senator Farrell also said he was still determined to get the trade barriers slashed. 'It's only by open discussion, honest discussion, with our allies in the United States that I think we can do that, but I certainly haven't given up on the prospect of getting these tariffs removed,' he said. 'And every opportunity I get, I'll continue to pursue that argument with the United States.' However, Senator Farrell said the decision will be ultimately made by Donald Trump, putting increased pressure on Mr Albanese's upcoming meeting with the US President. He said that while there were a 'range of ways' in which Australia communicates with the US, the 'most important … relationship between our prime minister and the president of the United States'. 'Look every meeting, I think, between an Australian Prime Minister and the US president will always be a critical meeting and I have the greatest confidence in our prime minister to push the Australian point of view on this.' The trade barriers currently include a 50 per cent levy on steel, a 25 per cent tariffs on aluminium and a blanket 10 per cent on other goods. While Mr Albanese maintained he won't compromise on Australia's biosecurity, he hinted Australia could review current settings which don't allow the US to import beef which originates from Canada and Mexico. Mr Albanese has also ruled out changes to the Pharmaceuticals Benefit Scheme, News Media Bargaining code and incoming ban on social media for under-16s, while highlighting Australia's critical minerals industry as a potential bargaining chip. 'If things can be sorted out in a way that protects our biosecurity – of course, we don't just say no, we don't want imports in here for the sake of it,' he told ABC radio on Friday. 'But our first priority is biosecurity and there'll be no compromise on that.' Mr Albanese said Australia would not have a 'subservient relationship to any nation'. 'We're a sovereign nation that stand on our own two feet,' he said. Senator Farrell also said he was 'confident' Australia can secure a new trade deal with the European Union, with EU President Ursula von der Leyen expected to visit Australia in July or August. 'We've got lots of things that we can sell to the to the Europeans. I believe now that there's an appetite to reach an agreement on both sides,' he said. 'The world has changed, those countries that believe in free and fair trade have to work together.'
News.com.au
43 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Beyond sick of it': Abbie Chatfield fires back at critics
Abbie Chatfield has addressed the controversies that erupted following her decision to speak out ahead of this year's federal election — and how she is 'often a scapegoat' to the 'demeaning' and 'deeply damaging' effects of being targeted by fellow feminists and far-right trolls. Chatfield used her platform to speak out about politics and the recent federal election in May. An Australian Electoral Commission inquiry was raised after collaborative social media posts between Chatfield and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as well as former Greens leader Adam Bandt, were queried by Liberal Senator Jane Hume. The AEC ultimately concluded that Chatfield's posts did not require authorisation under electoral law. Listen to the full interview with Abbie Chatfield on Something To Talk About: Speaking to the Stellar podcast, Something To Talk About, Chatfield said: 'The AEC stuff was a whole other level of, I believe, discrediting smaller voices, but also discrediting outspoken young women'. 'It seems that when women do more than one thing, they're deemed as inept at all the things they do,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About, in a new episode released today. 'But when men do more than one thing it's like, wow, he's a footy player and he can read an autocue. 'The AEC thing made me feel really targeted. I feel I'm often a scapegoat because of how the media portrays me as being the spokesperson on things, and they go, 'Oh, she's talking again…'' Chatfield also addressed recent criticisms lobbed at her by prominent writer and feminist Clementine Ford, who accused her of 'profiting from the performance of being politically engaged' following an interview that Chatfield conducted with Albanese on her podcast. 'I feel like I'm in the middle of stories like that all the time. So it's kind of, unfortunately, my norm,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About. 'But it's never enjoyable or pleasant. This idea that because I'm not doing things perfectly, that I'm an idiotic narcissist, I don't know anything, I'm brain dead, I'm a deeply basic thinker – they're just insults. 'It's not actually critiquing my work. For more from Abbie Chatfield, listen to the full interview on Something To Talk About: 'It was really hurtful because then after that, the right-wing comments came in saying, 'Nothing better than a cat fight. Two feminists fighting. You can't even agree with each other!' 'And it's very demeaning. And that isn't Clementine's fault, but it is something that she should have considered, and that I have considered when I haven't called her out for things that I would say are deeply damaging.' In the Stellar cover story and podcast episode released today, Chatfield also opens up about her personal life and relationship with boyfriend Adam Hyde, and why she is in a better place when it comes to her life outside of work She issues a warning to women, saying they 'shouldn't date Trump supporters'.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
As the planet warms and liberal democracy is attacked, does the government care?
This warning was published in 1762: "As soon as man can disobey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate." It comes from The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau's words inspired the French Revolution, and the American revolutionary war, and influenced the political and moral philosophy we call liberalism, on which modern Australian political society is based. The message contained in that warning is extremely important. If we want to live in a world in which individual human and civil rights mean anything, certain groups in society must not be allowed to behave with impunity. Why? Because if some groups can behave with impunity, and everyone else is forced to stand back and watch, it has a deeply corrosive effect on human culture. If they can behave with impunity, they'll keep pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with (who's going to stop them?), and their outrageous behaviour will become the new low "standard" for others to follow. It's obvious what that downward spiral in morality and ethics means for everyone. Do we believe freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to protest, and the media's right to tell the truth, are essential for a free society? If we do, then we can't allow privileged groups to dismantle those things in their effort to protect their "prerogative" to behave with impunity. When we let anyone hack away at those pillars of liberalism — and make it increasingly dangerous for individuals to tell the truth, to speak up, and to protest the abuse of power — what will happen to our "free society"? It will see illiberalism flourish. In some ways, the battle to protect important elements of liberal society has already been lost. In the 21st century, the right to privacy, which is essential to an individual's ability to speak freely in their own home, has been destroyed. The internet, which held so much promise in the 1990s, has been turned against us. It's become a tool to crush political dissent and compile lists of suspect individuals and their personal networks. The weaponisation of our data and AI technology is driving a rapid evolution in dystopian predictive policing and warfare. Some private companies operating at the frontier of this technology, like Palantir, are profiting from these developments. And we need to understand everything is connected. Take the environment, the very thing that sustains life on this planet. In December last year, researchers at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom released a study that showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environment protesters. It found more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involved arrests, more than three times the global average. It showed Australia's political leaders had joined the "rapid escalation" of global efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest in recent years, while sovereign states globally were failing to meet their emissions targets and international agreements. It complemented other reports (here and here) that illuminated the links between political donations and lobbying from fossil fuel companies, governments writing harsher laws and penalties for activists, policing agencies being used to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts bedding the laws down. Think about how that phenomenon is connected to the global economic system. Specifically, consider the role the "price mechanism" is supposed to play in industrialised society. At the moment, we're watching a nasty global battle over an attempt by scientists and environmentalists to have the true costs of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products fossil fuel companies sell to the world. If the true environmental, climate, and planetary costs of fossil fuels were really reflected in their prices, the price of petrol, gas and coal would be many multitudes higher than today's suppressed "market" prices. So the global fossil fuel industry is using every lever it can — political influence, legal systems, police forces, private security services, national armies, extra-judicial harassment and intimidation — to stop the true cost of their products being reflected in the market prices of their products. And climate and environmental activists and scientists are using every lever they can — research, letters to politicians, the legal system, protests, civil disobedience, and blockades — to have the true climate and planetary costs of fossil fuels reflected in their prices. Do we have a right to an inhabitable planet? It's not difficult to see how the battle over the price mechanism is deeply connected to the struggle to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples globally (including land rights, the right to cultural preservation, and participation in decision-making processes). Everything is connected. Last week, the climate analyst Ketan Joshi wrote a fiery article in Crikey that touched on many of these issues. It's really worth reading. Mr Joshi said the Albanese government's recent controversial decision to allow Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to continue operating until 2070 was a major blow to the climate movement and signified something sinister. He argued Labor was not a climate denier, it was something "far worse". He said if anyone in 2025 could work to worsen fossil fuel reliance in full acceptance of the consequences, without any willingness to work to prevent them, they were "far scarier" than climate deniers. "There isn't a great name for this, but we can call it "tactical fatalism": the intentional, weaponised insistence that a worse future is the only future (from those who benefit the most from whatever makes it bad)," he wrote. "The climate movement is ill-equipped to deal with a threat that looks like this. The easy binary of deniers vs believers died last decade. Any fantasy we had of a global moral pact of good intentions is dead. "This decade we are realising how much damage and death can be caused openly, without any shame. Genocidal countries know it, and the fossil fuel industry knows it, too. "A half-decade of wars, invasions, energy crises and a really nasty pandemic haven't been easy on our movement, and the tactical fatalist predators are circling." How do these sad political developments fit with the principles of "liberalism," where the right to speak freely, to tell the truth, and protest are supposed to be sacrosanct? In The Social Contract, Rousseau said when privileged groups can act with impunity we exist in a world where might is right. "And as the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest," he wrote. Is that really the world we want to live in? Is that what younger Australians voted for?
