Latest news with #MPDC
ABC News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium Planning Commission hearings
They've been staged in the shadow of a state election, but the Tasmanian Planning Commission hearings into the Macquarie Point stadium have provided perhaps the sharpest level of detail about the proposed project. Held over the past two weeks, the hearings have formed part of the Project of State Significance process and provided almost 30 stakeholders with the opportunity to present evidence to the planning commission panel assessing the stadium. The project proponent, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), has also had the opportunity to respond to the panel's draft integrated assessment report released earlier this year. Stakeholders were grilled by the panel and lawyers representing both the proponent, and a group opposing the stadium. So, what went on inside the hearings? Click on the bullet points to jump to each section. Lawyers representing the state, Chris Townshend KC and Anthony Spence, based most of their arguments on what constituted an appropriate use of the Macquarie Point site, and the legislation under which the MPDC was operating under. The state posited the planning commission had over relied on a 1991 planning review of the Sullivans Cove area in its draft report, and not enough weight had been given to more current and relevant legislation such as the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act. The basis for large parts of its argument was that Macquarie Point had been earmarked for development under specific legislation, and that the Project of State Significance process effectively "turned off" other planning schemes. In its opening submission, it told the panel that it would refer to a number of expert witnesses over the course of the hearings. The panel heard from local architects Leigh Woolley and Jerry De Gryse, who shared concerns about the stadium's size, scale and bulk. Mr De Gryse questioned whether the stadium precinct would be adequately publicly accessible, while Mr Woolley argued that the Domain headland would be "diminished and overwhelmed" by the stadium. Architect and heritage expert Jim Gard'ner presented revised impact assessments of the stadium on various locations around Hobart, based on fresh photo montages submitted by the proponent. He rated the stadium as having a "major" impact on the Hobart Cenotaph, but downgraded its indirect impact on four other sites. For example, Mr Gard'ner had previously rated the stadium's indirect impact on the UTAS Arts building on Hunter Street as 'very high' but downgraded that to 'medium' based on the new images. He recommended several conditions be applied to a planning permit, mostly relating to design tweaks which he believed would lessen the stadium's impact on the surrounding heritage area. Stadium designers, Cox Architecture, presented a new "fly through" of the stadium, as well as an explanation of the stadium design to date. Cox principal director Alastair Richardson was questioned on a wide range of elements, including stadium materials, roof beams, vehicle access, the proposed use of the Goods Shed and the stadium roof. Back to top The roof, and its potential impacts, were widely discussed. Planning expert Neil Shepherd, presenting on behalf of the MPDC, said, "the roof represents the element that will provide the greatest visual impact, in my opinion". But he argued "perceptions about the visual prominence of the building must be balanced against the desired role and functionality of the proposal in the chosen location". Respected town planner and urban designer Tim Biles, on behalf of the opponents group Our Place, launched a passionate critique of the stadium roof, decrying its potential impacts on the Hobart Cenotaph Mr Shepherd, in response to questions from planning commission panellist Shelley Penn, said he took the view "the significance of the cenotaph would remain, and that the roof would be another element in the view field". The level of roof transparency, and its potential reflectivity was also raised. Roland Browne, on behalf of Our Place, contended the Mount Nelson vista may not be able to be seen from the Cenotaph through the roof, due to the thickness of the ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) material. More information was submitted relating to Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania's concern with the roof, and the effect of shadowing it may cause on the cricket pitch. Back to top A major theme of the hearings was the stadium's visual impact, and how its physical presence may affect the city of Hobart. MPDC presented "visual amenity evidence", including new photo montages of the stadium from various viewpoints around the city, produced by architect Chris Goss of Melbourne-based firm Orbit Solutions. In response, anti-stadium group Our Place submitted an analysis of Mr Goss's images, compiled by landscape architect Barry Murphy. Our Place contested that the Orbit images presented the stadium with a "transparent" roof rather than a "translucent" roof, and questioned why Mr Goss's photo montages were compiled from viewpoints that were obscured by, in one example, a street sign, and, in a shot from the cenotaph, by a visiting cruise ship. Our Place had previously submitted its own photo montages, compiled by local architect Hamish Saul. In a separate submission though, Mr Murphy, Mr Saul and Mr Goss co-signed a "statement of agreed facts" that concluded that Orbit's 3D model of the stadium building was more accurate in relation to the stadium's materiality, its form and mass, and its geometry, compared with Mr Saul's. However, the statement acknowledged a difference in opinion about the roof rendition and focal length used to take the photos, which Mr Murphy argued in his submission should have been 50mm instead of 20mm. Back to top The panel heard from KPMG economists who prepared economic, financial impact and social benefits reports for the proponent last year. Michael Malakellis and David Harradine argued while their economic analysis found the benefit-cost ratio for the stadium would be less than one, they stressed the project should not be assessed in strict economic terms, given its unquantifiable social and brand value benefits. Stadiums Tasmania chief executive James Avery also made a lengthy presentation to the panel, in which he revealed an updated operating model for the stadium had been developed. He said it estimated the stadium would make $2.2 million per year before taxes, depreciation and amortisation — a way of managing the cost of intangible assets or loans — as opposed to a loss of more than $3 million per year under a previous model. It was based on the new capital cost of the stadium, which was $945 million, but, unlike before, it now includes state ownership of food and beverage facilities, advertising boards, and premium hospitality. The stadium is now forecast to host 37 major events, 40 2-day conferences and 260 "minor events" such as business functions and corporate dinners per year, accounting for 334 events across 377 days. Representatives from Tourism Tasmania and Business Events Tasmania also fronted the hearings highlighting the significance of the proposed 1,500-person conference centre, as did independent local economist Graeme Wells, who disputed some of KPMG's findings. The panel also heard from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, which had expressed concern about noise and vibration from the stadium during both the construction and operational phases. In its submission, it proposed a number of conditions that should be applied, should planning approval for the stadium be granted. Back to top The panel heard a planned underground car park has been reduced from three levels to two, and from 532 spaces to 374, reduced to keep the car park above the groundwater table. The car park is expected to service the entire Macquarie Point precinct and is estimated to cost $97 million. However, according to the MPDC, that cost will not be worn by the state, as the car park "is intended to be delivered as a commercial development opportunity and run by a private operator". The MPDC also states the car park is not required for the stadium's operations. Graeme Steverson of consultants WSP presented to the panel on transport matters, on behalf of the MPDC. He modelled a range of traffic and transport scenarios for large-scale sporting and concert events. Cox Architecture submitted diagrams that showed egress from the stadium in the event of an emergency, and fielded questions about the safety of the venue. Back to top Several stakeholders raised what they said was a lack of consultation by the MPDC and the state Government to the panel as a major concern. Daniel Hanna, representing Federal Group, which owns several properties on the Hobart waterfront, said the stadium would be detrimental to his company's business and that Federal had not been adequately consulted. Lawyers representing the MPDC referenced seven meetings between 2023 and 2024 between the proponent and Federal regarding the stadium, but Mr Hanna did not consider those meetings as adequate consultation. Historian and Aboriginal heritage experts Greg Lehman and Daphne Habibis echoed those sentiments, as did Nala Mansell from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Ms Mansell said Aboriginal land at Macquarie Point should be transferred to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Back to top The panel heard from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which had previously expressed concern about groundwater and contaminated fill at Macquarie Point. The MPDC submitted that only about 10 per cent of fill material earmarked to be excavated will be "level three" material — material that requires an additional level of disposal and storage management. The EPA submission outlined conditions it believed should be imposed, should the stadium development proceed, including that the director of the EPA be able to approve a stadium Construction Environmental Management Plan, and have a role in approving stadium design plans. It also wants to be the body responsible for enforcing those, and other conditions. Back to top The Tasmania Football Club, the Devils, was represented by chief executive officer Brendon Gale, who told the panel via a presentation that the stadium was crucial to the club's business case and viability. He said that "net stadium revenues" accounted for 47 per cent of a typical AFL club's revenue and called them "the most significant driver of financial competitive and financial strength" of a club. He added that stadium revenues accounted for just 43 per cent of club revenue 10 years ago. Mr Gale said there existed a strong correlation between a club's off-field financial strength and their on-field success. Back to top
ABC News
10-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Large crowd attends anti-stadium rally in Hobart, but minister says, 'We've got to get on with it'
A large crowd has 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." Responding to the criticism, Labor Rumney MLC Sarah Lovell said her party supported the project because it was a critical part of the AFL team deal. "But we also support the stadium because we support well-paid, meaningful jobs and once the Bridgewater bridge is finished there are no major infrastructure projects in the pipeline anywhere in Tasmania," Ms Lovell said. Asked if Labor's support was unconditional she said, "No". "This is not Labor's project. "This is Jeremy Rockliff's pet project that he made a commitment to deliver. He took it to the last election, he was re-elected and he now is in the position where he needs to deliver this project."
ABC News
10-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
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."
ABC News
05-05-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Tasmania to seek loan for Hobart stadium funding shortfall in pivot away from 'private-public partnership'
The Tasmanian government will resist the temptation of partnering with the private sector to fund and build its proposed Hobart stadium — and instead go it alone via a Macquarie Point borrowings bonanza. The ABC can reveal the government will fund construction of the stadium via debt obtained through the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), on top of $630 million of already committed state, federal and AFL funding. The decision was rubberstamped by cabinet last week, following a market-sounding exercise and was based partly on advice from Perth consultants Paxon Group and the Melbourne-based Infrastructure Advisory Group. The government will pivot toward a "design and construct" model and away from a "private-public partnership", which it determined would carry too high a risk to the state and threaten already tight timelines. It then intends to sell off parcels of the broader Macquarie Point precinct to private developers and use those funds to pay off the loan — which is likely to be upwards of $200 million. The proposed stadium is due to be completed by 2029. ( Supplied: MPDC ) Photo shows A concept image of the proposed Hobart stadium at Macquarie Poi nt. A leading independent economist tasked with reviewing Tasmania's proposal to build an AFL stadium on Hobart's waterfront finds the project is "already displaying the hallmarks of mismanagement" and is likely to exceed $1 billion. The parcels would include about 17,000 square metres of commercially zoned space encompassing Macquarie Point's "mixed use" and Antarctic precinct, as well as the housing precinct at Regatta Point, and an underground multi-storey car park. Under the plan, those parcels will become available following commencement of the stadium — provided it is approved by both houses of parliament — with the market value of the land expected to rise as the stadium development progresses. However, those land sales are not expected to cover the full amount of the loan. The MPDC will use existing funds to pay for the stadium build and, on current timelines, is not expected to borrow until about 2027 or later. The state government plans to introduce "enabling legislation" to the parliament to progress the stadium, rather than continuing with the Project of State Significance process. ( Supplied: MPDC ) The current official cost estimate for the stadium is $775 million but has been estimated by external quantity surveyors to be closer to $900 million. The state government has pledged $375 million in capital funding, while the federal government has committed $240 million and the AFL $15 million, leaving at minimum a $145 million shortfall, but the loan amount will likely be higher than that. Public-private partnership would have left state worse off, minister says Public infrastructure funders from around the world had expressed strong interest in partnering with the government to deliver the stadium and broader precinct, with the ABC confirming Tetris Capital, John Laing Group, Capella Capital and property developer Milieu — which was set to develop the site under a previous master plan — were among those keen. Melbourne-based Plenary Group, which had assembled a consortium, including a financier and builder, was considered the frontrunner had the government opted to partner with the private sector. But in a statement, Business, Industry and Resources Minister Eric Abetz told the ABC that the government's advice was that a private-public partnership would ultimately leave the state worse off. Eric Abetz says the new funding model will help the stadium be built on time. ( ABC News: Owain Stia James ) Mr Abetz said it would "cost the taxpayer more, take longer to implement and take away from the asset being owned by and for the Tasmanian people". "The decision to prioritise the delivery of the multipurpose stadium through a 'design and construct' pathway provides certainty and confidence in the future of the precinct and the Tasmania Devils AFL club," he said. " We cannot afford any delays if we are to meet existing time frames set out in the AFL agreement. Without a stadium, there is no Tasmanian AFL team. " The government's deal with the AFL requires a roofed stadium be built at Macquarie Point for the state to get a team. ( Supplied: MPDC ) Plenary managing director Damien Augustinus told the ABC he believed a private-public partnership would "deliver greater innovation, more certainty around on-time delivery and costs, and better whole-of-life outcomes than traditional design and construct or managing contract procurement methods". Mr Augustinus said involving the private sector would "mean more investment in Tasmania, creating more Tasmanian jobs and permit a cohesive whole-of-precinct approach". " In the Macquarie Point precinct, the Tasmanian government has a golden opportunity to partner with the private sector to finance, deliver and manage a world-class sporting, tourism and entertainment precinct. " A render of a bar inside the relocated and re-imagined Goods Shed, next to the proposed stadium. ( Supplied: MPDC ) What's a private-public partnership? A private-public partnership (PPP) would mean a public infrastructure firm would fund a shortfall, construct the stadium, and then enter an agreement with the government to maintain, and potentially operate, the stadium and precinct for 25-30 years. Photo shows A map showing pinch points on three out of the four sides of a stadium and nearby areas. Macquarie Point is hemmed in by a highway, a working port, heritage buildings and a knoll, with just enough space for a stadium. The Planning Commission has laid bare the problems. The government would have paid the consortium an agreed upon annual or quarterly fee, and likely a slice of revenue generated by the precinct for that period of time. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that while tempting, private-public partnerships had their pitfalls. "Because it's usually believed the private sector can manage construction projects more efficiently than the public sector, that is assumed to result in a net saving to the government," he said. "What PPPs sometimes ignore is that governments can borrow at lower interest rates than private companies, and in many PPPs that have been entered to in other states and in overseas jurisdictions, the private participants often find ways through complex legal contracts find ways to transfer risk back to the public sector." Saul Eslake says private-public partnerships have their pitfalls. ( ABC News: Daniel Irvine ) Mr Eslake said borrowing through the MPDC would provide the government with some budgetary camouflage — but that ultimately it will still be public money that will be borrowed and needs to be paid back, with interest. "If the government were to borrow through TASCORP in its own name, that would be reflected in the government's budget deficit and would add to the government's net debt," he said. "But if the Macquarie Point Development Corporation were to borrow — they would not appear in the general government's deficit and net debt, but rather in that of the public and non-financial corporation sector. "Although that would be disclosed in the budget papers, the borrowings of GBEs [government business enterprises] and other public non-financial corporations don't get as much attention or scrutiny." More stories on the stadium: Crucial independent MLC 'pleased' with change in funding Independent MLC Ruth Forrest, who holds a crucial upper house vote on the stadium, is not yet sold on the project, but said she was "pleased" the government had rejected a private-public partnership and that it would "absolutely" influence her vote. "It's critical in my mind," Ms Forrest said. Photo shows Concept art showing interior of sports stadium with cricket match underway. If it wasn't already official, it is now: The proposed Hobart stadium is massively on the nose among many Tasmanians. "It won't cost the state any more, because ultimately, we'd be underwriting any private-public partnership I would imagine. "It's more transparent because the people of Tasmania will have more vision of what it'll actually cost." Ms Forrest still wants answers to key questions raised by the Tasmanian Planning Commission as well as surety around the ongoing operating model of the stadium. "I'll need to be really clear about the operations of the food and beverage, the hospitality, the venue space, what that looks like. We need to own all of that, operate and control all of that to be assured it can be a sustainable model," she said. Greens say government's taxpayer funding promise is broken The government has long insisted its funding toward the stadium was capped at $375 million and "not a red cent more". The Greens, who have long opposed the stadium, said the decision to switch the funding model signalled a "huge broken promise". "The premier said 'not a red cent more' than $375 million would be spent on the stadium, but now Tasmanian taxpayers are responsible for many hundreds of millions of dollars more than he promised," Greens deputy leader Vica Bayley said. "The Liberal government's talk of private investment has always been a ploy to mislead the community about the true cost of the stadium to the taxpayer. "There's no good model for funding the stadium, which is why the government should scrap it."
IOL News
02-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Maputo Port to double container capacity with $165 million expansion
The Port of Maputo has become a major import and export hub for South African businesses: Its container terminal capacity is being doubled following a $165 million investment by operator of the terminal, DP World. Image: Supplied The Port of Maputo plans to double its container terminal capacity following a $165 million (R3.04 billion) expansion by a key operator of the port, the Dubai-based DP World. The Port of Maputo is operated under a concession by the Maputo Port Development Company (MPDC), which includes DP World, JSE-listed Grindrod, and Mozambique's state-owned railway operator. Mozambique's Minister of Transport and Logistics, João Jorge Matlomb attended a ground-breaking event to mark the commencement of the expansion project, a statement from DP World said on Friday. The project will significantly enhance the capabilities of the port and position it as a trade and logistics hub for Southern Africa, and open a gateway for larger container ships. The expansion is expected to meet growing global trade demands, create thousands of new jobs, and contribute to Mozambique's growth, the company said. 'The port of Maputo is at the heart of transforming trade on the African continent, as it has the potential to connect the land-locked countries of Southern Africa to the rest of the world. This investment reinforces Mozambique's role as a key cargo gateway, improves its global competitiveness, and positions the country as a dynamic business hub,' said DP World CEO and MD for Southern Africa Mohammed Akoojee. The port will be equipped with the latest technology and infrastructure to boost operational capacity and efficiency, with the terminal yard and quay undergoing a revamp and modernisation. Yard capacity will increase by 6.48 hectares, doubling throughput from 255 000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) to 530 000 TEUs, while the total quay length will be extended to 650 metres and the berth deepened to 16 metres. To manage larger container volumes and a diverse range of commodities, new equipment will be introduced, including three ship-to-shore (STS) cranes capable of handling post-Panamax ships and an expanded fleet of rubber-tyred gantry (RTG) cranes, complementing the existing mobile harbour crane (MHC) fleet. Reefer container capacity will increase to over 700 plugs, supporting agricultural export growth.
